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
__
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:
> >
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, 2016
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 Wil
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) i
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 08:26:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> > > The inter-e
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 semaphores) is
>> >
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 synchronisat
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 gem_syn
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 e
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 alt
The inter-engine synchronisation (with and without semaphores) is
equally exercised by gem_sync, so leave gem_storedw_loop out of the
"quick" set.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
---
tests/gem_storedw_loop.c | 6 +++---
tests/intel-ci/fast-feedback.testlist | 7 ---
2 files changed,
12 matches
Mail list logo