On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 04:06:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:44:16PM +0100, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > The i915_gem_object_flush_active() call used to do lots. Over time it has done > > less and less. Now all it does check the various associated requests to see if > > they can be retired. Hence this patch renames the function and updates the > > comments around it to match the current operation. > > > > For: VIZ-5115 > > Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > > When rebasing patches and especially like here when also renaming them a > bit please leave some indication of what you've changed. Took me a while > to figure out where one of my pending comments from the previous round > went too. > > And please don't just "v2: rebase", but please add some indicators against > what it conflicted if it's obvious. This function doesn't do an unconditional retire - the new name is much worse since it is inconsistent with how requests retire. In my make GEM umpteen times faster patches, I repurposed this function for reporting the object's current activeness and called it bool i915_gem_oject_active() - though that is probably better as i915_gem_object_is_active(). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
