On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:10:16PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:23:54 +0100 > John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > I think "no_flush" would be more in line with some of the other > functions in the kernel. "wo" makes me think of "write only". But > it's not a big deal. > > I do wonder about the rules for when add_request is needed though, and > I need to look later in the series for the usage. When I looked at it > in relation to fences, it didn't seem to be a good fit since it looked > like requests got freed when the active list was cleared, vs when they > were actually consumed by some user. Yeah, wo_flush is highly confusing while no_flush is rather clear. There's also the question of how this all will interfere with execlists since those patches also have the need to keep track of stuff, but slightly different. I'll go through your rfc for some light reading but I think we should settle execlists first before proceeding with the schedule in earnest. -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
