On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 08:01:21PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > Reusing bo_gem here is a little worrying as it would be very easy for
> > someone to add code to the end of the function thinking that bo_gem
> > still was the batch.
> >
> Doesn't this concert apply to drm_intel_gem_bo_exec() as wel
On 31 August 2015 at 19:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:14:12PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Just like we do for the original exec()
>>
>> v2: move bo_gem declaration to the top of the function.
>>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson
>> Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Signed-off-b
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:14:12PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Just like we do for the original exec()
>
> v2: move bo_gem declaration to the top of the function.
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson
> Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov
> ---
> intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 7 +
Just like we do for the original exec()
v2: move bo_gem declaration to the top of the function.
Cc: Chris Wilson
Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov
---
intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 7 +--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/intel/inte
