Re: [RFC 01/21] Bug: missing i915_seqno_passed() call?

[John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>]

On 06/10/2014 15:45, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 03:15:05PM +0100, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c |    2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> index 2a5351d..8c68219 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> @@ -2886,7 +2886,7 @@ i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
>>   	seqno = obj->last_read_seqno;
>>   	/* Optimization: Avoid semaphore sync when we are sure we already
>>   	 * waited for an object with higher seqno */
>> -	if (seqno <= from->semaphore.sync_seqno[idx])
>> +	if (seqno <= from->semaphore.sync_seqno[idx]) /* <--- broken?! needs to use i915_seqno_passed()??? */
> No, becuase hw semaphores don't wrap around so we actual need to check for
> <=, not the wrap-around logic seqno_passed has. If you feel like pls
> submit a patch to add a comment here.
I would prefer to remove the test completely and replace it with some 
request structure based operation. Unfortunately, I haven't worked out 
what yet.

> btw you're threading looks a bit funny, instead of patches all being
> in-reply-to the cover letter they're all in-reply-to the previous patch.
> Presuming you don't have a funky .gitconfig recent git should do this in
> the preferred form by default.
Phooey. Git-sendmail kept spewing warning messages about chain-reply-to 
having changed and needs to be sent explicitly in the config file to 
keep it quiet. I guess I set it the wrong way.

> -Daniel
>
>>   		return 0;
>>   
>>   	ret = i915_gem_check_olr(obj->ring, seqno);
>> -- 
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx