On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the
embedded exec_node happened
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net wrote:
How about we do things slightly differently and check (__node)-field.next
!= NULL just like we do on regular versions. Since the check happens
between the increment step and running the user's code, __node is valid for
On 03/09/2015 06:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the
embedded exec_node happened to be at offset 0 in the
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote:
On 03/09/2015 06:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote:
Also... I'm not a fan of these ever-growing macros. They're a lot like
alligators. They're pretty cute when they're small, but when they grow
up they drown you in a river and eat you. I feel like the users of
this
On 03/10/2015 08:04 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Ian Romanick i...@freedesktop.org wrote:
On 03/09/2015 06:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link,
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 05:48:20 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net
wrote:
How about we do things slightly differently and check
(__node)-field.next
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net
wrote:
How about we do things slightly differently and check
(__node)-field.next
!= NULL just like we do on regular versions. Since the check happens
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org
wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the
Reviewed-by: Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the
embedded exec_node happened to be at offset 0 in the parent struct.
Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the embedded exec_node. NULL checks would fail unless the
embedded exec_node happened
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org
wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are pointers to the structure containing the exec_node
link, not the
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:02 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Connor Abbott
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org
wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev are
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kenneth Graunke kenn...@whitecape.org
wrote:
From: Jason Ekstrand jason.ekstr...@intel.com
__next and __prev
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Jason Ekstrand ja...@jlekstrand.net
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Connor Abbott cwabbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Matt Turner
21 matches
Mail list logo
