On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 04:32:26PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:58:43PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > For an object right on the boundary of mappable space, as the fenceable > > size is stricly greater than the actual size, its fence region may extend > > out of mappable space. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Do you have a scenario where this could blow up? Given the pot alignment > and fence_size constraints these two should still be equivalent. It could only concievably impact PNV (the only system where we have non-mappable and fence_size > obj.base.size), and the alignment there is always the fence size as well which would prevent the overlap. > Ack if I do an s/tighten/clarify/ and amend your commit message? Ok. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
