<#part sign=pgpmime> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 19:02:47 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > The issue is that the first one introduces a pretty decent perf > regression, iirc Chris mentions something much large than 10x slowdown > on certain cairo traces on sna. So we can only merge the first one > together with the second one. Is there any effect on mesa or uxa? > Yeah, that's kinda the issue which I've failed to phrase clearly in my mail ;-) Frightening patches with that kind of global scope need a reason far more compelling than a performance regression caused by a separate correctness fix. If we need the correctness patch to resolve a known problem (especially a regression), then we'll take the performance hit and fix that in the next release. > Without this issue being confirmed on older machines I'm leaning > towards merging both patches to -next - after all snb never really > regressed because the offending commit changed behaviour from "dies as > soon as the ring wraps" to "sometimes corrupts the ring". If we don't see any significant issues in 'normal' usage (mesa and uxa), then I agree, we should push both patches to -next. -- keith.packard at intel.com
