On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:03:03 +0200, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > Now given how well-tested that code is, I expect bugs. But imo the right > course of action is to make that code testable first before we sprinkle > -EIO handling all over the place. I've planned to resurrect my gpu hangman > this week, and I'm thinking of ways to extend that to test our -EIO/gpu > wedging code.
I disagree with this approach. I need the driver to robust its own failures so that we don't lose data. I know from experience that is currently not. Looking at the code paths required for CPU access and making them resilient as possible is a necessary evil, imho. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
