From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@intel.com>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: IGT dev <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] lib: implement new engine discovery interface
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:33:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181127203325.GA21386@intel.intel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14b2e3a6-ef69-1ab6-6a04-0fb426adff62@linux.intel.com>
Hi Tvrtko,
> > + ctx_param.ctx_id = ctx_id;
> > + ctx_param.size = size;
> > + ctx_param.param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES;
> > + ctx_param.value = to_user_pointer(ctx_engine);
> > +
> > + /* check whether we free the engines */
> > + igt_require(!ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_CONTEXT_SETPARAM, &ctx_param));
> > +
> > + free(ctx_engine);
>
> Leaks on skip, not that it matters a lot, but the comments makes me think
> you wanted to handle it.
The comment is a leftover from the cleanup. I need to fix/remove
it.
While as for freeing ctx_engine in case of failure, some ugly code
would be required. I think it's cleaner to leave it as it is,
anyway 'igt_require' exits in case of failure.
> > +#define for_each_engine_ctx(fd, ctx, e) \
> > + for (int __m = __gem_setup_ctx_engines(fd, ctx), __e = e = 1; \
> > + __e <= __m; e = ++__e)
> > +
>
> Is __e needed? Could just use passed in e?
I cannot mix declarations and "already declared variables"
initializations in the first expression in 'for'. If I do
something like:
for (int __m = __gem_setup_ctx_engines(), e = 1; ... )
I would re-define 'e' and it would be a different variable
outside the loop.
So that either I declare '__m' outside, or I initialize 'e'
outside, or I use the double 'for' loop as it was done
previously, or do some ugly tricks.
It looked simplier to define an '__e'.
Am I missing anything?
> > bool gem_ring_is_physical_engine(int fd, unsigned int ring);
> > bool gem_ring_has_physical_engine(int fd, unsigned int ring);
> > +int __gem_setup_ctx_engines(int fd, uint32_t ctx_id);
> > bool gem_can_store_dword(int fd, unsigned int engine);
> >
>
> Looks okay. But we need to decide whether we want the iterator to be a
> struct sooner rather than later now.
>
> I think if you go and convert one of the tests which uses
> for_each_physical_engine to enumerate subtests and so, it will become
> clearer what approach work better. (struct iterator, or helpers to get data
> from engine index.)
All right, I'll try it out and I will post something as a reply to this
patch.
Thanks a lot, Tvrtko!
Andi
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-27 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-26 20:43 [igt-dev] [PATCH v3 0/3] new engine discovery interface Andi Shyti
2018-11-26 20:43 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH v3 1/3] include/drm-uapi: import i915_drm.h header file Andi Shyti
2018-11-26 20:43 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH v3 2/3] lib: implement new engine discovery interface Andi Shyti
2018-11-27 12:00 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-11-27 20:33 ` Andi Shyti [this message]
2018-11-28 8:29 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-12-14 15:34 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH v3.5 " Andi Shyti
2018-12-21 11:48 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-11-26 20:43 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH v3 3/3] tests: gem_exec_basic: add "exec-ctx" buffer execution demo test Andi Shyti
2018-11-26 21:10 ` Chris Wilson
2018-11-27 11:40 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-11-26 22:23 ` [igt-dev] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for new engine discovery interface (rev3) Patchwork
2018-12-14 15:50 ` [igt-dev] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for new engine discovery interface (rev4) Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181127203325.GA21386@intel.intel \
--to=andi.shyti@intel.com \
--cc=andi@etezian.org \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox