On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:37:16 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:13:36PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > obj->base.write_domain = 0; > > - list_del_init(&obj->gpu_write_list); > > + obj->pending_gpu_write = false; > > i915_gem_object_move_to_inactive(obj); > > Hm, this hunk makes me wonder whether we don't leak some bogus state > accross a gpu reset. Can't we just reuse the move_to_inactive helper here, > ensuring that we consistenly clear up any active state? Yes. I had planned to finish off with another patch to remove that pair of then redundant lines, but apparently forgot. I think it is better expressed as a second patch, at least from the point of view of how I was applying the transformations. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
