From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12 v2] drm/i915: remove do_retire from i915_wait_request Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:25:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20120427142543.GC5147@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1335481389-7232-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1335481389-7232-2-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540299E77C for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so537855wgb.0 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1335481389-7232-2-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> 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: Ben Widawsky Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:02:58PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > This originates from a hack by me to quickly fix a bug in an earlier > patch where we needed control over whether or not waiting on a seqno > actually did any retire list processing. Since the two operations aren't > clearly related, we should pull the parameter out of the wait function, > and make the caller responsible for retiring if the action is desired. > > The only function call site which did not get an explicit retire_request call > (on purpose) is i915_gem_inactive_shrink(). That code was already calling > retire_request a second time. > > v2: don't modify any behavior excepit i915_gem_inactive_shrink(Daniel) > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48