From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v4] drm/i915: Dumb down the semaphore
 logic
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:59:13 +0000
Message-ID: <20110915035913.GB25691@cloud01>
References: <1316057568-8233-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C729F73D
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1316057568-8233-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 08:32:47PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> While I think the previous code is correct, it was hard to follow and
> hard to debug. Since we already have a ring abstraction, might as well
> use it to handle the semaphore updates and compares.
> 
> I don't expect this code to make semaphores better or worse, but you
> never know...
> 
> v2:
> Remove magic per Keith's suggestions.
> Ran Daniel's gem_ring_sync_loop test on this.
> 
> v3:
> Ignored one of Keith's suggestions.
> 
> v4:
> Removed some bloat per Daniel's recommendation.

Just to clarify, I think I like the existing code a bit better than what
the code looked like with Daniel's other recommendation to cut out the
per ring sync_to function. If he shows me something good, there will be
a v5, I guess.