Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-20 10:45:12) > @@ -398,7 +399,7 @@ static void preempt(int fd, unsigned ring, unsigned flags) > igt_assert(gem_bo_busy(fd, spin[0]->handle)); > } > > - for (int n = 0; n < 16; n++) > + for (int n = 0; n < MAX_ELSP_QLEN; n++) > igt_spin_batch_free(fd, spin[n]);
ARRAY_SIZE() seems more appropriate in the for loops. Seems like you've opted not to use it so much, why so? > @@ -450,6 +453,7 @@ static void preempt_other(int fd, unsigned ring) > result, (n + 1)*sizeof(uint32_t), n + 1, > 0, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER); > > + igt_debugfs_dump(fd, "i915_engine_info"); Lost and afraid hunk here? You can have my R-b for it in separate patch. Regards, Joonas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
