On pe, 2016-10-14 at 13:18 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Our low-level wait routine has evolved from our generic wait interface
> that handled unlocked, RPS boosting, waits with time tracking. If we
> push our GEM fence tracking to use reservation_objects (required for
> handling multiple timelines), we lose the ability to pass the required
> information down to i915_wait_request(). However, if we push the extra
> functionality from i915_wait_request() to the individual callsites
> (i915_gem_object_wait_rendering and i915_gem_wait_ioctl) that make use
> of those extras, we can both simplify our low level wait and prepare for
> extending the GEM interface for use of reservation_objects.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>

No changelog so I assume only whitespace fixes were made, and hopefully
not to the worse.


Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>

If you split the i915_gem_wait_for_error removal to own patch with
"Fixes:" you can add my R-b there too.

Regards, Joonas
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to