On ti, 2016-09-20 at 09:29 +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.
> * This causes a temporary regression in the use of wait-ioctl as a busy
> query -- it will fail to report immediately, but go into
> i915_wait_request() before timing out.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Already provided review comments in the previous series, no changelog
and at least the two first were not accounted for.

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

Reply via email to