On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 10:43:36AM +0100, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote: > On 7/17/2014 5:25 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:22:38PM +0100, daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>The context used to execute a batchbuffer is becoming increasingly > >>important. Duplicating to avoid modifications to the original trace. > > > >I am sure we don't want both. The structure encoding is exposed to > >userspace so we are free to update the tracepoints within reason. > > As you can see by the next patch in the series, I plan to add a callback > inside the trace. My original patch modified the existing trace, but (if > I've understood correctly) Daniel asked for a duplicated trace to avoid > adding the callback into the existing one. I guess there was a misunderstanding. I was worried about changing the tracepoint, but apparently Chris disagrees. The callback in the tracepoint is an unrelated issue and a no-go either way. -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
