i965: Rename do_flush_locked to submit_batch().
do_flush_locked isn't a great name - especially given that there's no locking going on in our code relating to execbuf. Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
This commit is contained in:
parent
962cc1bd17
commit
e1623da818
|
@ -777,7 +777,7 @@ execbuffer(int fd,
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static int
|
||||
do_flush_locked(struct brw_context *brw, int in_fence_fd, int *out_fence_fd)
|
||||
submit_batch(struct brw_context *brw, int in_fence_fd, int *out_fence_fd)
|
||||
{
|
||||
const struct gen_device_info *devinfo = &brw->screen->devinfo;
|
||||
__DRIscreen *dri_screen = brw->screen->driScrnPriv;
|
||||
|
@ -865,7 +865,8 @@ do_flush_locked(struct brw_context *brw, int in_fence_fd, int *out_fence_fd)
|
|||
brw_check_for_reset(brw);
|
||||
|
||||
if (ret != 0) {
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "intel_do_flush_locked failed: %s\n", strerror(-ret));
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "i965: Failed to submit batchbuffer: %s\n",
|
||||
strerror(-ret));
|
||||
exit(1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -914,7 +915,7 @@ _intel_batchbuffer_flush_fence(struct brw_context *brw,
|
|||
brw->batch.state_relocs.reloc_count);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
ret = do_flush_locked(brw, in_fence_fd, out_fence_fd);
|
||||
ret = submit_batch(brw, in_fence_fd, out_fence_fd);
|
||||
|
||||
if (unlikely(INTEL_DEBUG & DEBUG_SYNC)) {
|
||||
fprintf(stderr, "waiting for idle\n");
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue