On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:02:02 -0700, Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:02:58 +0100
> Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > @@ -3731,9 +3731,6 @@ void i915_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object
> > *gem_obj)
> >
> > trace_i915_gem_object_destroy(obj);
> >
> > - if (gem_obj->import_attach)
> > - drm_prime_gem_destroy(gem_obj, obj->sg_table);
> > -
> > if (obj->phys_obj)
> > i915_gem_detach_phys_object(dev, obj);
> >
> > @@ -3755,6 +3752,9 @@ void i915_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object
> > *gem_obj)
> >
> > BUG_ON(obj->pages);
> >
> > + if (obj->base.import_attach)
> > + drm_prime_gem_destroy(&obj->base, NULL);
> > +
> > drm_gem_object_release(&obj->base);
> > i915_gem_info_remove_obj(dev_priv, obj->base.size);
> >
>
> Was the order in which destroy happens moved intentionally?
Yes. ;)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > index 4bb1b94..ca3497e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_dmabuf.c
> > @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ out:
> > }
> >
> > static void i915_gem_unmap_dma_buf(struct dma_buf_attachment *attachment,
> > - struct sg_table *sg, enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > + struct sg_table *sg,
> > + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > {
> > dma_unmap_sg(attachment->dev, sg->sgl, sg->nents, dir);
> > sg_free_table(sg);
>
> I thought we frown upon unnecessary whitespace fixes in patches which
> have behavioral changes?
Call it a leftover from the time I spent moving much of the common code
to drm_prime.c
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
