On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 02:14:52AM -0800, Kenneth Graunke wrote: > On 12/06/2013 12:54 AM, Xiang, Haihao wrote: > > From: "Xiang, Haihao" <haihao.xiang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Otherwise the stale data in the buffer > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiang, Haihao <haihao.xiang@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > lib/intel_batchbuffer.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/intel_batchbuffer.c b/lib/intel_batchbuffer.c > > index 06a5437..9ce7424 100644 > > --- a/lib/intel_batchbuffer.c > > +++ b/lib/intel_batchbuffer.c > > @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ intel_batchbuffer_reset(struct intel_batchbuffer *batch) > > batch->bo = drm_intel_bo_alloc(batch->bufmgr, "batchbuffer", > > BATCH_SZ, 4096); > > > > + memset(batch->buffer, 0, sizeof(batch->buffer)); > > + > > batch->ptr = batch->buffer; > > } > > > > > > I don't think that should be harmful, but this would definitely make > debugging nicer. For intel-gpu-tools, I think it makes sense. > > Reviewed-by: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Indeed, I think it makes sense as well, thanks for the patch and review, pushed. -- Damien _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
