On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:41:26 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:29:53AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:44:12PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > > @@ -3038,44 +3203,35 @@ out:
> > > > */
> > > > int
> > > > i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > > > - struct intel_engine_cs *to)
> > > > + struct intel_engine_cs *to,
> > > > + bool readonly)
> > > > {
> > >
> > > It might be nice to have sync_read/sync_write functions instead, since
> > > looking up bool args or unnamed enums is a pain.
> >
> > Not convinced since it is used in a single location and two function
> > calls would look unelegant - but we could switch to PROT_READ |
> > PROT_WRITE throughout.
>
> Switching to PROT_READ/WRITE might be nice as a general cleanup (or some
> other named thing) since read_only/write booleans are all over the place.
> So I like this, but definitely something for a separate patch.
Agreed, that's a good idea.
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
