From: Li RongQing <[email protected]>
The expression:
MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW | (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB) ?: 0;
is parsed as:
(MI_FLUSH_DW | MI_FLUSH_DW_OP_STOREDW | MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW |
(flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB)) ?: 0;
Since the combined constant flags are always non-zero, the GNU extension
'?: 0' acts as a no-op and does not change the value. Remove this redundant
and confusing logic.
Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c
index cfeb4fc..ee468d3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ring_ops.c
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int emit_bb_start(u64 batch_addr, u32 ppgtt_flag,
u32 *dw, int i)
static int emit_flush_invalidate(u32 addr, u32 val, u32 flush_flags, u32 *dw,
int i)
{
dw[i++] = MI_FLUSH_DW | MI_FLUSH_DW_OP_STOREDW |
- MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW | (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB) ?: 0;
+ MI_FLUSH_IMM_DW | (flush_flags & MI_INVALIDATE_TLB);
dw[i++] = addr | MI_FLUSH_DW_USE_GTT;
dw[i++] = 0;
--
2.9.4
