On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 04:37:29PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -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
