From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Dumb down the semaphore logic
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:44:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20110910204447.56d949d1@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1315437162-14312-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<20110908075236.GA2884@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AD09E75E
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110908075236.GA2884@phenom.ffwll.local>
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>
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 <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Eric@freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:52:36 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 04:12:41PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > While I think the previous code is correct, it was hard to follow
> > and hard to debug. Since we already have a ring abstraction, might
> > as well use it to handle the semaphore updates and compares.
> > 
> > I don't expect this code to make semaphores better or worse, but you
> > never know...
> 
> I kinda start to like this ;-)

As I said, I am biased. To me it is much simpler to understand, but it's
definitely more code, and more abstraction.

> 
> While you stare at this, two things I'm pondering:
> - Would it make sense to also move the !semaphores ring_sync_to case
> into the ringbuffer abstraction?

That is an excellent idea. I will work on it with the other
recommendations from Keith.

> - Can we have a basic testcase for the magic values (and semaphores in
>   general), please?

I really like what you've done with the test case after the fixes
discussed on IRC. I will update my commit message to mention it if you
manage to push that before I fix up the other things.

Ben