Hi Chris,
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> > > index 808eb327a29b..53e28e417cc9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_domain.c
> > > @@ -187,21 +187,23 @@ int i915_gem_object_set_cache_level(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - assert_object_held(obj);
> > > -
> > > if (obj->cache_level == cache_level)
> >
> > you're checking here...
> >
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - ret = i915_gem_object_unbind(obj, I915_GEM_OBJECT_UNBIND_ACTIVE);
> > > + ret = i915_gem_object_lock_interruptible(obj);
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > - /* The cache-level will be applied when each vma is rebound. */
> > > + /* Always invalidate stale cachelines */
> > > + if (obj->cache_level != cache_level) {
> >
> > ... and here... you might want to get rid of this one?
>
> One outside, one inside the lock.
OK!
Anyway, I don't see any issues with the code,
Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxx>
Andi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
