On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:44:51PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 02:13:26PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35:28PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > > > To count context losses, add struct i915_ctx_hang_stats for > > > both i915_hw_context and drm_i915_file_private. > > > drm_i915_file_private is used when there is no context. > > > > > > v2: renamed and cleaned up the struct (Chris Wilson, Ian Romanick) > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com> > > > > > I don't have time to do a proper review before Daniel wants to merge > > these, and Chris has already reviewed it. > > > > 1-6 are: > > Acked-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > > > > I don't really like the behavior of 7. At least, I'd like to make it > > something that can be disabled via debugfs, sysfs, or module parameter. > > (I'd very much prefer it to be opt-in also). TBH , I only read it very > > fast, and I'm not horribly opposed to it, just a bunch of complexity for > > IMO little gain. Presumably the problem it's trying to solve should be > > fixed with a fix to ddx, mesa, libva, client, whatever. In the embedded > > case, the same thing applies. Banning the guilty doesn't make the user > > experience any better. So the only thing I see is DoS, but we've never > > *really* made that our priority anyway, so, meh. > > Right, it is policy. But it is existing policy. Ultimately we want to > get as much of that decision out of the kernel. Merged the entire series with a little note added to this patch explaining the justification for it. Thanks for patches and review. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
