From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/i915: context support unit test
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 21:10:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20110104201004.GA3519@viiv.ffwll.ch>
References: <20101225225303.GA5311@snipes.kumite>
	<20101228223616.GB5596@viiv.ffwll.ch>
	<20101229040301.GA17502@snipes.kumite>
	<5df004b018c6d26ee6c55171892e3e84.squirrel@www.ffwll.ch>
	<b9dded$hh2bn6@orsmga002.jf.intel.com>
	<e422031f05cf8e51af8ab1f9153cc3d0.squirrel@www.ffwll.ch>
	<20101230202118.GA4813@snipes.kumite>
	<20101231004831.GA14664@snipes.kumite>
	<0d30dc$kk5sgj@orsmga001.jf.intel.com>
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 mail.ffwll.ch (cable-static-49-187.intergga.ch [157.161.49.187])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E259E710
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue,  4 Jan 2011 12:10:13 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0d30dc$kk5sgj@orsmga001.jf.intel.com>
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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: benjamin.widawsky@linux.intel.com, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 09:31:23AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I'm still leaning towards explicit associate/disassociate ioctls as I
> think that will lead to a simpler userspace API (or at least integrate
> conveniently with the existing libdrm).

I don't like a separate ioctl to associate/disassociate a buffer from a
context: Conceptually there's no way to change that association without an
execbuf call. Doing the book-keeping as a separate, non-atomic ioctl calls
calls for trouble imho.

> ...

> "Minimal, consistent and difficult to misuse."

i.e. violates the "difficult to misuse" paradigm ;) My idea of a special
reloc type is probably not the cleanest (hm, slight understatement here ;)
and could need some improvement. Anyway, I'll wait and see what the real
use-case looks like. My arguments feel too hand-waivy already ...

Cheers, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48