From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] reset rework, 2nd try
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:04:38 +0200
Message-ID: <20120705080438.GD5203@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1341433123-23055-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<1341435312_170509@CP5-2952>
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 mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com
	[209.85.212.177])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2811E9ECCE
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu,  5 Jul 2012 01:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhm11 with SMTP id hm11so4425910wib.12
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu, 05 Jul 2012 01:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1341435312_170509@CP5-2952>
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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:54:09PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed,  4 Jul 2012 22:18:38 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I took me a while to see the real issues Chris has been complaining about, but I
> > think the reworked patches take them all into account now. The big change is
> > that the wedged check at the beginning of intel_ring_begin stays, but gets
> > improved by properly deciding betweein -EIO and -EAGAIN. I've checked all the
> > callsites and couldn't find any issues.
> > 
> > Comments, flames, reviews and testing reports highly welcome.
> 
> Other than being dense and requiring a big loud comment explaining that
> 'EIO without !wedged' means an EIO emanating from another subsystem,
> this looks good to me and more importantly survives battery from the
> pathological renderer.
> 
> With the spelling mistakes fixed and an improved comment for the
> SIGBUS patch,
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Tested-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

I've queued the entire series for next, thanks a lot for the review and
testing.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48