On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 09:04:03AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ma, 2016-07-25 at 18:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Tidy up the for loops that handle waiting for read/write vs read-only > > access. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 158 > > +++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > > 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 3f6b69dcaccb..2d86a0c3f295 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -1339,6 +1339,23 @@ put_rpm: > > return ret; > > } > > > > +static void > > +i915_gem_object_retire_request(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, > > + struct drm_i915_gem_request *req) > > +{ > > + int idx = req->engine->id; > > + > > + if (i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_read[idx], > > + &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex) == req) > > + i915_gem_object_retire__read(obj, idx); > > + else if (i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_write, > > + &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex) == req) > > + i915_gem_object_retire__write(obj); > > If these functions will use same mutex (be it different than > struct_mutex) in all invocations, I'd make an alias for it.
Why? It is written like this to prevent the compiler doing anything when not debugging. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
