On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 04:53:00PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:37:57 +
> Matthew Brost wrote:
>
> > > Looks like you are changing the behavior here (unconditional ->
> > > conditional timestamp update)? Probably something that should go in a
> > > separate patch.
>
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:37:57 +
Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Looks like you are changing the behavior here (unconditional ->
> > conditional timestamp update)? Probably something that should go in a
> > separate patch.
> >
>
> This patch creates a race so this check isn't need before this
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:16:07 -0700
> Matthew Brost wrote:
>
> > Rather than call free_job and run_job in same work item have a dedicated
> > work item for each. This aligns with the design and intended use of work
> > queues.
> >
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:16:07 -0700
Matthew Brost wrote:
> Rather than call free_job and run_job in same work item have a dedicated
> work item for each. This aligns with the design and intended use of work
> queues.
>
> v2:
>- Test for DMA_FENCE_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_BIT before setting
>
