On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 07:24:41PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 08:50:38PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Aside from the fact that it leaves confusing dumps on error capture, it > > is entirely unnecessary, and potentially harmful in cases like BDW, > > where the instruction has changed. > > > > In reality (seemingly), this will have no behavioral impact. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The reason why we currently do is because i915.semaphores can change at > runtime. So we emit the instructions whilst i915.semaphores=0 just in > case, it is enabled later. This restriction can be lifted with a little > more work in handling the missed semaphores, I think, or it may just > require a proof that everything is safe as is. > -Chris > It should still check the module parameter - I guess it would be nice to guard changing the module parameter with struct_mutex (generally, not just here), as that also breaks the emit path. So in short, I think it's broken for two reasons. My (and Daniel's) vote is to just make the module param static. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
