On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:49:03 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:32:23PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > It looks like the patch to reuse check_wedge() should be first as it is > > the common theme in the series. > > Hm, actually I think I'll smash the check_wedge into the last patch. With > that change, this patch would solely be about not returning spurious -EIO, > whereas the last patch would be solely about not returning -EAGAIN in > cases we can't handle. Does that make some sense? The split sounds reasonable, grouping the patch in that manner should give a better story. My only holdout is that I don't want to lose the papering in i915_reset(). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
