On ma, 2017-02-13 at 07:55 -0800, Oscar Mateo wrote: > > On 02/10/2017 04:04 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:24:25AM -0800, Oscar Mateo wrote: > > > > > > There is other stuff that potentially needs cleaning, even if we didn't get to the point of > > > creating an execbuf_client. > > Just because the allocator doesn't employ onion unwinding? > > Or is there more to come? > No, nothing more to come. I just saw this was wrong in passing and > decided to send a patch. But I see Joonas is spearheading a bigger > cleanup, so maybe this can be fixed there. I was actually inspired by this change (I had it in my TODO list) which I completed while going through the code. Would be great if you can do a similar fixup of the code to include proper onion teardown to submission_init and make submission_fini without condition checks. In the guc_client case it brought up quite good fixes and irregularities in phasing the init and teardown. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
