Hey, On 24 November 2015 at 13:59, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:29:07PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: >> 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. Sure, which is fair enough, but OTOH is there an actual plan for redoing the VMA tracking? Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
