On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:29:07PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 24 November 2015 at 13:27, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:17:57PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> On 24/11/15 12:53, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> >The WARN_ON is accurate though. The original patch fails to fix even the > >> >limited aspect of the bug it claimed to. > >> > >> That is not true. It only makes it a bit more limited, and not by > >> its fault even. Even with that it makes things a bit better, not > >> worse. > > > > It makes the code worse for very limited improvement, for which we did > > not have a publically reported bug, i.e. the impact is very small. > > I can get the person who reported it to me to raise a Bugzilla > complaining about the WARN_ON if you like ... This is about the original bug, for with the bugfix resulted in the WARN_ON now being removed here. The underlying problem (I think, it's a maze) is that our vma active tracking is a bit ... underwhelming. -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
