On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:41:43PM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > On 26/11/2014 10:39, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:28:13AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>With refcounting it looks like you can just drop that refcount, but > >>that's not really the case. So make sure no one forgets. > >> > >>Motivated by the unlocked call in the mmio flip code. > >I had an unlocked variant for exactly this purpose (and a few others > >where we do not want to take the lock again) and so also had the WARN > >inside i915_request_free. > > > >Drop the _gem_, the requests are lower level than GEM itself. > >-Chris > > > > Daniel: Should I fold the WARN_ON patch into my patch series and repost? > > Chris: Are you saying that you want an extra patch to rename > 'drm_i915_gem_request' to 'drm_i915_request' throughout the entire > driver? Not even struct drm_i915_request, just struct i915_request and friends. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
