From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Widawsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] gtt patches Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:29:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20130927192926.GA1057@bwidawsk.net> References: <1380227493-31124-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20130927053407.GA4840@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386A5E8244 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Intel Graphics Development List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 09:21:51PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > At this point it just seems like you're intentionally making it harder > > for me to ever merge PPGTT. > > I have two issues with the merged patches: > 1. There's a regression, and QA is meanwhile at the 3rd or so dupe > report. So it's not really an arcane corner case. And I've > specifically written a testcase for secure batch dispatching and > specifically asked you to test to make sure it catches the bugs we've > discussed, so I hope you understand I'm a bit underwhelmed that this > slept through. > > 2. I have a bit an issue with the currently merged code for rebasing > -internal. I only stumbled over that when I've tried to rebase > -internal and was a bit disappointed to see that despite that I've > raised this the first time your vm->bind/unbind patches showed up > nothing changed. > > That's the first&last patch. > > The stuff in-between is to make rebasing -internal a bit easier (while > I need to do fixups anyway) since I really botched this 1-2 times > everytime there was a conflict. I've thought that the oustanding stuff > from your series only needs to touch the ->enable callbacks in > i915_gem_gtt.c. A quick look at your ppgtt branches shows that in > addition to that there's only a now outdated cleanup patch and a > rather self-contained debugfs dumper on top. So my thinking was that > right now is an ideal time to polish i915_gem_gtt.c a bit. > > But of course I'll drop cleanup patches when they conflict badly with > ongoing stuff, like I've done a few times already. But it didn't look > like this is the case here. > > Now you seem to reject my patches, but I don't see any alternate > proposals from you. Furthermore to me it feels a bit the discussion > has derailed into non-constructive form a bit, so I guess this will > take a bit of time to resolve. Since I can't just hold public and > internal trees hostage until that's settled I'll drop your two vma > patches meanwhile. > > Cheers, Daniel I do not plan to develop PPGTT any further. Please feel free to revert as many patches as you'd like. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center