<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [SNA HSW bisected] git commit "sna: Skip sync if we have an idle coherent bo" causes corruption" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94125#c6">Comment # 6</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [SNA HSW bisected] git commit "sna: Skip sync if we have an idle coherent bo" causes corruption" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94125">bug 94125</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:chris@chris-wilson.co.uk" title="Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>"> Chris Wilson</a> <pre>(In reply to Matti Hämäläinen from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=94125#c5">comment #5</a>) > Pulled and now testing with added asserts. The issue is not presenting (with > 1h of testing), nor am I hitting the asserts - so it is working, but that > kinda raises the question whether I _should_ hit the asserts at some point? > E.g. how to hit the situation the original changeset was meant to address? The original regressing patch was a micro-optimisation to avoid a syscall and walking a potentially long list of requests in the kernel (trying to keep that list alive to reduce future work). Any time we read back from a pixmap, I expect (at least the second time) to hit the short-circuit so given a workload where you saw a failure, I would expect it still be taking the short-circuit, just less often (having avoided the bug).</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>