On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:02:58PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> This originates from a hack by me to quickly fix a bug in an earlier
> patch where we needed control over whether or not waiting on a seqno
> actually did any retire list processing. Since the two operations aren't
> clearly related, we should pull the parameter out of the wait function,
> and make the caller responsible for retiring if the action is desired.
>
> The only function call site which did not get an explicit retire_request call
> (on purpose) is i915_gem_inactive_shrink(). That code was already calling
> retire_request a second time.
>
> v2: don't modify any behavior excepit i915_gem_inactive_shrink(Daniel)
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <[email protected]>
Queued for -next, thanks for the patch.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: [email protected]
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
