Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-01-15 10:58:39)
>
> On 15/01/2020 08:33, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > +static bool hold_request(const struct i915_request *rq)
> > +{
> > + struct i915_dependency *p;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If one of our ancestors is still on hold, we must also still be on
> > + * hold, otherwise we will bypass it and execute before it.
> > + */
> > + list_for_each_entry(p, &rq->sched.signalers_list, signal_link) {
> > + const struct i915_request *s =
> > + container_of(p->signaler, typeof(*s), sched);
> > +
> > + if (s->engine != rq->engine)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + return i915_request_has_hold(s);
>
> It shouldn't be:
>
> if (i915_request_has_hold(s))
> return true;
>
> ?
Yes, it should be.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
