On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 02:00:50PM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > >+ list_move_tail(&obj->batch_pool_list, &pool->cache_list); > Why is it now safe to do a move_tail instead of add_tail if the node > has just been allocated? Was the original add_tail() wrong or am I > not spotting some critical difference to how new pool objects are > created?
The link is initialised in i915_gem_object_init(). It was always safe to use list_move_tail. > >+ i915_gem_object_pin_pages(obj); > Is it worth updating the function description comment to add a line > about the returned buffer now being pinned and the caller must worry > about unpinning it? Didn't even spot that there was a function description. The other choice is to just push the pinning into the caller, the emphasis was on moving get_pages() into the allocator, and so for consistency it should also pin the pages. Will update. Now I just want to rename it from batch pool to buffer pool... -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
