On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 04:23:09PM -0700, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Pinning a userptr onto the hardware raises interesting questions about > > the lifetime of such a surface as the framebuffer extends that life > > beyond the client's address space. That is the hardware will need to > > keep scanning out from the backing storage even after the client wants > > to remap its address space. As the hardware pins the backing storage, > > the userptr becomes invalid and this raises a WARN when the clients > > tries to unmap its address space. The situation can be even more > > complicated when the buffer is passed between processes, between a > > client and display server, where the lifetime and hardware access is > > even more confusing. Deny it. > > Can we allow this for unsynchronized userptrs? I'd like to not add more complexity to a root-only feature. -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
