On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:30:51AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 09/23/2015 10:28 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 02:31:38PM +0530, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: > >>On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 16:14 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>>On 09/15/2015 09:33 AM, ankitprasad.r.sharma@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>In what circumstances can drm_mm_scan_remove_block fail? > >>It works some thing like this: > >>If there are 10 purgable nodes in the unwind list and 4 of them are > >>positioned in a way to reap enough contiguous space for the new object > >>(not necessarily purging all nodes will give us the amount of space we > >>need), then for the remaining 6 nodes drm_mm_scan_remove_block will > >>fail, while the rest will be removed to make space for the new object. > > > >Quoting the nice kerneldoc we have: > > > > * Returns: > > * True if this block should be evicted, false otherwise. Will always > > * return false when no hole has been found. > > > >Was that not clear enough or did you simply not bother to read the docs? > >If it's not clear (together with the obligatory DOC: overview section) we > >need to improve them ... > > Not sure to whom you are addressing this? I did not read the docs, after > years of no docs the notion that there aren't any is kind of hard embedded > in me at least. :) > > Ankit's explanation is also more detailed, answers the interesting question, > again for me at least. Question was to you, and looks like the answer is "didn't read the docs". They do explain (in more detail) pretty much everything what Ankitprasad said, just wanted to make sure we are covered there. Which reminds me: Do we have kerneldoc for stolen (and this new feature here) too? Ankitprasad? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
