Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-24 16:48:45) > > On 24/05/2018 16:33, Chris Wilson wrote: > > But what we call ctx here isn't really context, but timeline; how about > > if we switch to the fence=%llx:%d representation we've mostly settled on > > for the debug messages? > > For the ctx and seqno pair? But here we have the additional issue of > hw_id. I think context is better than timeline at this level. > > Or you mean keep explicit hw_id and join ctx and seqno into fence=%llx:%d? Right. I think what we call ctx here is very confusing, as it's just the fence.context (i.e timeline id) and not any of the ids we assign to the context (neither hw_id or uabi_id), so I don't think ctx refers to i915_gem_context/intel_context at all and so would rather stop using 'ctx'. Pardon the rambling, -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
