On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:57:01AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:05:33AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > This is just a little bit of syntatic sugar to hide the atomic_reads() > > throughout the code to retrieve the current reset_counter. It also > > provides the other utility functions to check the reset state on the > > already read reset_counter, so that we can read it once and do multiple > > tests rather than risk the value changing between tests. > > This patch also changes the meaning of reset_in_progress to not include > WEDGED afaict. I agree with that change, but it needs to be mentioned in > the commit message. > > Also with that change there's some cleanup potential since a bunch of > callers that explicitly checked for reset_in_progress && > !terminally_wedged now can drop the 2nd part of the condition. That > simplification is why I've done this change in my patch. I was just splitting out the header change and simplest of seds from the complete patch. Changing the reset/recovery interfaces I left till last. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
