Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Add soft-pinning API for execbuffer

From: "Daniel, Thomas" <thomas.daniel@intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Add soft-pinning API for execbuffer
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:59:12 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BFEE8FEC12424048AF1805991D65FA912EE2F720@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1444128791-6327-3-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@chris-wilson.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 11:53 AM
> To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Chris Wilson; Daniel, Thomas
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Add soft-pinning API for execbuffer
> 
> Userspace can pass in an offset that it presumes the object is located
> at. The kernel will then do its utmost to fit the object into that
> location. The assumption is that userspace is handling its own object
> locations (for example along with full-ppgtt) and that the kernel will
> rarely have to make space for the user's requests.
> 
> v2: Fix i915_gem_evict_range() (now evict_for_vma) to handle ordinary
> and fixed objects within the same batch
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: "Daniel, Thomas" <thomas.daniel@intel.com>

This didn't apply cleanly to my tree pulled today (after patches 1 and 2 of this series).
Are you going to post a rebase?

Cheers,
Thomas.

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx