Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: In the submission cleanup, do not bail out if there is no execbuf_client

2017-02-14 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
On ma, 2017-02-13 at 07:55 -0800, Oscar Mateo wrote: > > On 02/10/2017 04:04 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:24:25AM -0800, Oscar Mateo wrote: > > > > > > There is other stuff that potentially needs cleaning, even if we didn't > > > get to the point of > > > creating

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: In the submission cleanup, do not bail out if there is no execbuf_client

2017-02-13 Thread Oscar Mateo
On 02/10/2017 04:04 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:24:25AM -0800, Oscar Mateo wrote: There is other stuff that potentially needs cleaning, even if we didn't get to the point of creating an execbuf_client. Just because the allocator doesn't employ onion unwinding? Or is

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: In the submission cleanup, do not bail out if there is no execbuf_client

2017-02-10 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:24:25AM -0800, Oscar Mateo wrote: > There is other stuff that potentially needs cleaning, even if we didn't get > to the point of > creating an execbuf_client. Just because the allocator doesn't employ onion unwinding? Or is there more to come? > Signed-off-by: Oscar

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: In the submission cleanup, do not bail out if there is no execbuf_client

2017-02-09 Thread Oscar Mateo
There is other stuff that potentially needs cleaning, even if we didn't get to the point of creating an execbuf_client. Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git