Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-10-14 13:25:58)
>
> On 14/10/2019 13:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-10-14 13:00:01)
> >>
> >> On 14/10/2019 10:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> +static void cancel_active(struct i915_request *rq,
> >>> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct intel_context * const ce = rq->hw_context;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * The executing context has been cancelled. Fixup the context so that
> >>> + * it will be marked as incomplete [-EIO] upon resubmission and not
>
> (read below first)
>
> ... and not misleadingly say "Fixup the context so that it will be
> marked as incomplete" because there is nothing in this function which
> does that. It mostly happens by the virtual of context already being
> marked as banned somewhere else. This comment should just explain the
> decision to rewind the ring->head for more determinism. It can still
> mention canceling of user payload and -EIO. Just needs to be clear of
> the single extra thing achieved here by the head rewind and context edit.
I thought I was clear: "upon resubmission". So use a more active voice to
reduce ambiguity, gotcha.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
