On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:02:58PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > This originates from a hack by me to quickly fix a bug in an earlier > patch where we needed control over whether or not waiting on a seqno > actually did any retire list processing. Since the two operations aren't > clearly related, we should pull the parameter out of the wait function, > and make the caller responsible for retiring if the action is desired. > > The only function call site which did not get an explicit retire_request call > (on purpose) is i915_gem_inactive_shrink(). That code was already calling > retire_request a second time. > > v2: don't modify any behavior excepit i915_gem_inactive_shrink(Daniel) > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
