From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Use hash tables for the command
 parser
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 13:25:33 +0100
Message-ID: <536B77BD.6030508@linux.intel.com>
References: <1398698528-25256-1-git-send-email-bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
 <536B54B5.4010904@linux.intel.com>
 <20140508114457.GB20257@strange.amr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145786EE37
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Thu,  8 May 2014 05:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140508114457.GB20257@strange.amr.corp.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>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org


On 05/08/2014 12:44 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 10:56:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brad,
>>
>> On 04/28/2014 04:22 PM, bradley.d.volkin@intel.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> -	BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring));
>>> +	BUG_ON(!validate_cmds_sorted(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_table_count));
>>>   	BUG_ON(!validate_regs_sorted(ring));
>>> +
>>> +	BUG_ON(init_hash_table(ring, cmd_tables, cmd_table_count));
>>
>> Is a BUG_ON a bit harsh since the above fails only on ENOMEM condition?
>>
>> If the concern is not allowing any command execution if parser setup
>> has failed, it would be nicer to the system as whole to just keep
>> rejecting everything, but let the rest of the kernel live to enable
>> debug or whatever?
>
> Those number_of_cmds allocations are a bit awkward though, couldn't we
> just embed the hlist_node into the desciptor struct?

Until Brad comes online, I think that is because command descriptors to 
hash table entries are not 1-to-1.

Tvrtko