Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

On 11/13/2017 10:27 AM, Christian König wrote: Am 13.11.2017 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: On 11/13/2017 07:39 AM, Christian König wrote: Am 13.11.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer: On 12/11/17 10:35 AM, Christian König wrote: A few comments on the code: +/* Validate bo size is

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

Am 13.11.2017 um 15:57 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: On 11/13/2017 07:39 AM, Christian König wrote: Am 13.11.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer: On 12/11/17 10:35 AM, Christian König wrote: A few comments on the code: +/* Validate bo size is bit bigger then the request domain */ +static

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

On 11/13/2017 07:39 AM, Christian König wrote: Am 13.11.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer: On 12/11/17 10:35 AM, Christian König wrote: A few comments on the code: +/* Validate bo size is bit bigger then the request domain */ +static inline bool amdgpu_bo_validate_bo_size(struct

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

Am 13.11.2017 um 12:32 schrieb Michel Dänzer: On 12/11/17 10:35 AM, Christian König wrote: A few comments on the code: +/* Validate bo size is bit bigger then the request domain */ +static inline bool amdgpu_bo_validate_bo_size(struct amdgpu_device *adev, +                      unsigned long

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

On 12/11/17 10:35 AM, Christian König wrote: > A few comments on the code: > >> +/* Validate bo size is bit bigger then the request domain */ >> +static inline bool amdgpu_bo_validate_bo_size(struct amdgpu_device >> *adev, >> +                      unsigned long size, u32 domain) > Drop the

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

A few comments on the code: +/* Validate bo size is bit bigger then the request domain */ +static inline bool amdgpu_bo_validate_bo_size(struct amdgpu_device *adev, +                      unsigned long size, u32 domain) Drop the inline keyword and the second _bo_ in the name here. +{ +    

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

On 11/10/2017 10:48 AM, Christian König wrote: Am 10.11.2017 um 16:36 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: On 11/10/2017 07:17 AM, Christian König wrote: Series is Acked-by: Christian König . Please note that I think your OOM killer test shows quite a bug we currently

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

Am 10.11.2017 um 16:36 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky: On 11/10/2017 07:17 AM, Christian König wrote: Series is Acked-by: Christian König . Please note that I think your OOM killer test shows quite a bug we currently have in the kernel driver. A single allocation of

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

On 11/10/2017 07:17 AM, Christian König wrote: Series is Acked-by: Christian König . Please note that I think your OOM killer test shows quite a bug we currently have in the kernel driver. A single allocation of 1TB shouldn't trigger the OOM killer, but rather be

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

Am 10.11.2017 um 13:17 schrieb Christian König: Series is Acked-by: Christian König . Please note that I think your OOM killer test shows quite a bug we currently have in the kernel driver. A single allocation of 1TB shouldn't trigger the OOM killer, but rather be

Re: [PATCH libdrm 0/4] Dynamicly disable suites and tets.

Series is Acked-by: Christian König . Please note that I think your OOM killer test shows quite a bug we currently have in the kernel driver. A single allocation of 1TB shouldn't trigger the OOM killer, but rather be reacted immediately. Instead I expected that we