Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2017-07-20 14:31:31) >> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > When we wedge the device, we clear out the in-flight requests and >> > advance the breadcrumb to indicate they are complete. However, the >> > breadcrumb advance includes an assert that the engine is idle, so that >> > advancement needs to be the last step to ensure we pass our own sanity >> > checks. >> >> I am confused about this one. The previous patch seems to make >> the concern void. > > Yeah, I moved the assert around, but still felt the order imposed by > the memory of that assert was better. Agreet that the ordering is better. If you swap these two patches around, you dont have to change the commit msg. Otherwise change false notion that there is assert in this path. Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
