On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:45:25 -0700, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:16:57PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > ... even though it was disabled. A mistake in the handling of fence reuse > > caused us to skip the vital delay of waiting for the object to finish > > rendering before changing the register. This resulted in us changing the > > fence register whilst the bo was active and so causing the blits to > > complete using the wrong stride or even the wrong tiling. (Visually the > > effect is that small blocks of the screen look like they have been > > interlaced). The fix is to wait for the GPU to finish using the memory > > region pointed to by the fence before changing it. > > > > Backported from f48629cff5bf3a0df923ce0314ace584212afbe7. > > What is that commit id? I don't see that in Linus's tree.
That was my fault, I pasted the id from the wrong tree. The correct id was 29c5a587284195278e233eec5c2234c24fb2c204. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34584 > > Cc: Andy Whitcroft <[email protected]> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > > [Note for 2.6.38-stable, we need to reintroduce the interruptible passing] > > What do you mean by this? That's the comment from the original patch as a reminder as what needed to be changed. Other than the inclusion of the commit the patch was taken from, I left the changelog unmolested. Do you prefer removing such comments and including the description of the change against the original as part of the origin statement? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
