On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:12:00 +0200 Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:58:22AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 21:52:01 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So don't forget to restore them on resume and dump them into > > > the error state. > > > > This should probably just be >= 6 instead; I don't think we're > > getting rid of fences anytime soon. > > As discussed on irc >= 6 is a bit hard to do in a switch > statement ;-) Do you want me to resend the patches using the gcc > ranged switch extension suggested by Adam Jackson (i.e. 6..UINT_MAX)? > Or can you slap your r-b on them as-is? I was suggesting that you convert it to an if ladder with the >= 6 at the top. That should be a separate patch though. Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
