Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-17 09:13:21)
>
> On 16/07/2020 18:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -341,8 +325,10 @@ static void insert_breadcrumb(struct i915_request *rq,
> > break;
> > }
> > list_add(&rq->signal_link, pos);
> > - if (pos == &ce->signals) /* catch transitions from empty list */
> > + if (pos == &ce->signals) { /* catch transitions from empty list */
> > list_move_tail(&ce->signal_link, &b->signalers);
> > + irq_work_queue(&b->irq_work); /* check after enabling irq */
> > + }
> > GEM_BUG_ON(!check_signal_order(ce, rq));
> >
> > set_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNAL, &rq->fence.flags);
> > @@ -401,7 +387,7 @@ bool i915_request_enable_breadcrumb(struct i915_request *rq)
> >
> > spin_unlock(&b->irq_lock);
> >
> > - return !__request_completed(rq);
> > + return true;
>
> Maybe my in head diff apply is failing me, but I think there isn't a
> "return false" path left so could be made a return void function.
There is no return false path anymore (since we always queue the worker
which should run immediately after dma_fence_enable_signaling if
necessary, that seemed to be more sensible than conditionally using the
worker, I also looked at splitting enable_breadcrumb and
activate_breadcrumb, but the two paths are more similar than not), I
kept it bool so that it matched i915_fence_enable_signaling.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
