On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk at oracle.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> From: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob at vmware.com> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob at vmware.com> >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com> >> --- >> ?drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | ? ?5 ++++- >> ?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c >> index c14eb76..8ac6cee 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c >> @@ -716,7 +716,10 @@ static int vmw_surface_dmabuf_pin(struct >> vmw_framebuffer *vfb) >> ? ? ? struct vmw_framebuffer_surface *vfbs = >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vmw_framebuffer_to_vfbs(&vfb->base); >> ? ? ? unsigned long size = vfbs->base.base.pitch * vfbs->base.base.height; >> - ? ? int ret; >> + ? ? struct ttm_placement ne_placement = vmw_vram_ne_placement; >> + ? ? int ret = 0; > > So why the 'int ret = 0' ? That looks like it belongs to > a different patch?
It doesn't do anything and is not a part of any later patch, then again its okay to be paranoid. Cheers Jakob.
