On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 07:59:30AM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 15/02/2017 21:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson
>
> Thanks. So you think it is worth it?
Yes. As you say, it brings it into line with the rest of the command
emission sequences - and using a consistent pat
On 15/02/2017 21:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 04:06:33PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Use the "*batch++ = " style as in the ring emission for better
readability and also simplify the logic a bit by consolidating
the offset and size calculations and over
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 04:06:33PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin
>
> Use the "*batch++ = " style as in the ring emission for better
> readability and also simplify the logic a bit by consolidating
> the offset and size calculations and overflow checking. The
> latter is a pr
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
Use the "*batch++ = " style as in the ring emission for better
readability and also simplify the logic a bit by consolidating
the offset and size calculations and overflow checking. The
latter is a programming error so it is not required to check
for it after each write to th
