Quoting Chad Versace (2017-06-19 19:42:16) > On Mon 12 Jun 2017, Chris Wilson wrote: > > brw_emit_mi_flush(brw); > > > > switch (fence->type) { > > @@ -335,6 +363,8 @@ brw_gl_fence_sync(struct gl_context *ctx, struct > > gl_sync_object *_sync, > > struct brw_context *brw = brw_context(ctx); > > struct brw_gl_sync *sync = (struct brw_gl_sync *) _sync; > > > > + assert(condition == EGL_SYNC_PRIOR_COMMANDS_COMPLETE_KHR); > > + > > This function is the entrypoint for glFenceSync; > brw_dri_client_wait_sync() is the entry point for eglClientWaitSync. So > the assertion should be on GL_SYNC_GPU_COMMANDS_COMPLETE. For the > record, GL_SYNC_GPU_COMMANDS_COMPLETE != EGL_SYNC_PRIOR_COMMANDS_COMPLETE.
Are you happy with the implicit question asked by the assert, that we don't need to handle any other condition and so do the resolve unconditionally? I didn't see anything else in KHR_fence_sync and EGL_ANDROID_native_fence still refer to that as being the only condition, so the assert was to catch future additions. -Chris _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev