This originates from a hack by me to quickly fix a bug in an earlier
patch where we needed control over whether or not waiting on a seqno
actually did any retire list processing. Since the two operations aren't
clearly related, we should pull the parameter out of the wait function,
and make the caller responsible for retiring if the action is desired.
The only function call site which did not get an explicit retire_request call
(on purpose) is i915_gem_inactive_shrink(). That code was already calling
retire_request a second time.
v2: don't modify any behavior excepit i915_gem_inactive_shrink(Daniel)
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
projects / linux-beck.git / commit