On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:22:02PM -0200, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > 2017-02-14 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:40:38AM -0200, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > 2017-02-14 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > One thing that occurs to me is whether we should be setting the > > timestamp when we set an error. The above (sync_debug though) implies > > that it expects the error to have the timestamp. sync_fence_info could > > go either way. > > We could do it. I don't see any reason against it. It is just uncertain as to what timestamp means, and what the user wants. In i915 we may end up flagging an error on a fence long (many 10s) before the fence is signaled. It still feels more appropriate to set the timestamp on when the fence is complete - certainly for the case where we replay the request (and we flag fence->error that we did so as there may have been side-effects that we should inform the user about). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
