On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:32 AM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You killed a BUG in i915_gem_retire_requests_ring, shouldn't that be a WARN or are you in the business of completely killing assertions now :p? Yeah, and my little commit message annotation even explained that it's fully redundant since the move_to_inactive function called on the next line has the exact same check ;-) > Otherwise, it looks good to me. There are enough diffs because of some > other patches you merged (like watermarks) - that I may have well missed > something in the noise; ie. no promises. Thanks, though stupid me failed to push out the last patch I've merged. But that one applied without fuzz, so I think it should be ok. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
