On 01/08/2016 01:47 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 01:16:54PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: >> On 01/04/2016 12:57 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 09:20:44AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: >>>> So this one has my ack. >>> >>> This series makes a number of fundamental mistakes in seqno-interrupt >>> handling, so no. >> >> Well unless you can enumerate the issues in enough detail for us to address them, we don't have much choice but to go ahead. I know you've replied to a few of these threads in the past, but I don't see a current list of outstanding bugs aside from the one about modifying input params on the execbuf error path (though the code comment seems to indicate some care is being taken there at least, so should be a small fix). > > Other than the series addressing the reported bugs which this is direct > conflict with? Which patchset came first? And yes, clearly enumerating the issues is helpful regardless. It doesn't really matter which came first though, we've agreed to move forward with John's version since the scheduler has been outstanding for so long, so your bug fixes will have to be rebased on top of this work. I hope that's acceptable, since I think we all have the same ultimate goal here... Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
