On 16/02/15 21:03, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 06:25:10PM +0000, Damien Lespiau wrote: >> instpm_mode != relative_constants_mode is quite unlikely to happen, so >> we can test it first to use C's && short-circuiting and not test on >> 'ring'. >> >> I know, probably a useless micro-optimisation in the big scheme of >> things, but I'm going to add another test here, so might as well do it. > > If you want to get pedantic, we want to move this to per-context :) > -Chris This test-and-set of instpm_mode will get reworked anyway when we add preemption support, as that means we can no longer assume the value set in the last execbuffer call is still in force at the beginning of the next. .Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
