From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: fixup seqno allocation logic for lazy_request Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:55:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20120126135539.GK3896@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1327505569-14984-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B079E807 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by wico1 with SMTP id o1so519522wic.36 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:55:38 -0800 (PST) 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: Chris Wilson Cc: Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:46:51PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > The actual refactoring patch are also ok, though I'd like for Daniel > to scope out who owns the seqno vs the request, especially in the light > of no-more-domains... I've thought a bit more about this and one great upside of seqnos over a simple pointer to the request is that we'd need to properly manage references to the latter. I.e. when we free a request we would need to ensure that anyone still referencing it is actually gone, and the current code is unfortunately quite far away from that :( I think we should keep this refactor idea in mind and look at it again after no-more-domains and after intel_ringbuffer.c has been simplified. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48