From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: don't return a spurious -EIO from intel_ring_begin Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: <1340658438_69856@CP5-2952> References: <1340548956-4097-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <1340548956-4097-4-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <1340656383_69674@CP5-2952> <20120625204903.GG4708@phenom.ffwll.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4589E790 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:07:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120625204903.GG4708@phenom.ffwll.local> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: Daniel Vetter Cc: Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:49:03 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:32:23PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > It looks like the patch to reuse check_wedge() should be first as it is > > the common theme in the series. > > Hm, actually I think I'll smash the check_wedge into the last patch. With > that change, this patch would solely be about not returning spurious -EIO, > whereas the last patch would be solely about not returning -EAGAIN in > cases we can't handle. Does that make some sense? The split sounds reasonable, grouping the patch in that manner should give a better story. My only holdout is that I don't want to lose the papering in i915_reset(). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre