On 16/02/2017 13:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:23:51PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 16/02/2017 13:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:23:24PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+ /*
+* Emit the two workaround batch buffers, recording the offset
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:23:51PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 16/02/2017 13:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:23:24PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>+ /*
> >>+* Emit the two workaround batch buffers, recording the offset from the
> >>+* start of the workaro
On 16/02/2017 13:20, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:23:24PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
+ /*
+* Emit the two workaround batch buffers, recording the offset from the
+* start of the workaround batch buffer object for each and their
+* respective siz
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:23:24PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> + /*
> + * Emit the two workaround batch buffers, recording the offset from the
> + * start of the workaround batch buffer object for each and their
> + * respective sizes.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY
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
