Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-27 Thread Petri Latvala
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:07:25PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > Am I understanding correctly that gem folks don't object to > gem_storedw_loop being removed from BAT? Interpreting silence as a yes. Acked-by: Petri Latvala Please push this. -- Petri Latvala

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-25 Thread Petri Latvala
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:18:00PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 20/10/2016 15:02, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 20/10/2016 10:16, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/10/2016 15:02, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 20/10/2016 10:16, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: On Wed, Oct 19,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 20/10/2016 10:16, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > >>>On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 20/10/2016 10:16, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores)

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Daniel Vetter writes: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: >>> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Mika Kuoppala
Daniel Vetter writes: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > > The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:16:16AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > The inter-engine

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is > > > equally exercised by

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:45:47AM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is > > equally exercised by gem_sync, so leave gem_storedw_loop out of the > > "quick" set. > > > How

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt: drop gem_storedw_loop from BAT

2016-10-20 Thread Petri Latvala
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is > equally exercised by gem_sync, so leave gem_storedw_loop out of the > "quick" set. How equally is "equally"? Is the test actually redundant, should it be removed