On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 08:41:47PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:10:16PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:23:54 +0100
john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
I think no_flush would be more in line with some of the other
functions in the kernel. wo makes
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:10:16PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:23:54 +0100
john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
I think no_flush would be more in line with some of the other
functions in the kernel. wo makes me think of write only. But
it's not a big deal.
I do wonder
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:23:54 +0100
john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The scheduler needs to track batch buffers by seqno without extra, non-batch
buffer work being attached to the same seqno. This means that anywhere which
adds work to the ring
From: John Harrison john.c.harri...@intel.com
The scheduler needs to track batch buffers by seqno without extra, non-batch
buffer work being attached to the same seqno. This means that anywhere which
adds work to the ring should explicitly call i915_add_request() when it has
finished writing to
