> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Vetter > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 4:08 PM > To: Daniel, Thomas > Cc: Chris Wilson; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Add soft-pinning API for > execbuffer > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:59:12PM +0000, Daniel, Thomas wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 11:53 AM > > > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Cc: Chris Wilson; Daniel, Thomas > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Add soft-pinning API for execbuffer > > > > > > Userspace can pass in an offset that it presumes the object is located > > > at. The kernel will then do its utmost to fit the object into that > > > location. The assumption is that userspace is handling its own object > > > locations (for example along with full-ppgtt) and that the kernel will > > > rarely have to make space for the user's requests. > > > > > > v2: Fix i915_gem_evict_range() (now evict_for_vma) to handle ordinary > > > and fixed objects within the same batch > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: "Daniel, Thomas" <thomas.daniel@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > This didn't apply cleanly to my tree pulled today (after patches 1 and 2 of this > series). > > Are you going to post a rebase? > > It's a really trivial conflict in the uapi flag allocation. Happens all > the time with interface extensions. > > What I'm looking for here is the userspace for this new interface. And the > testcases. Hm I thought the beignet guys had already posted. Vinay has written i-g-t for this > -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
