[snip]
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:18:00AM -0700, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote:
> > > +struct intel_context *
> > > +i915_gem_context_validate(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file,
> > > + struct intel_engine_cs *ring, const u32 ctx_id) {
> > > + struct intel_context *ctx = NULL;
> > > + struct i915_ctx_hang_stats *hs;
> > > +
> > > + if (ring->id != RCS && ctx_id != DEFAULT_CONTEXT_ID)
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > > +
> > > + ctx = i915_gem_context_get(file->driver_priv, ctx_id);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(ctx))
> > > + return ctx;
> > > +
> > > + hs = &ctx->hang_stats;
> > > + if (hs->banned) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG("Context %u tried to submit while banned\n",
> > ctx_id);
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> >
> > Ugh. No.
> > -Chris
>
> D´oh! Why?
> - Oscar
Not sure if you got an answer on this. I'd guess the objection is that
the function effectively implements part of the execbuf2 API contract
rather than generic context behavior. So we'd want to just keep it as
part of i915_gem_execbuffer.c.
Brad
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
