Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-04-04 13:05:23)
> On 4 April 2018 at 10:13, Joonas Lahtinen
> wrote:
> > Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-03-19 22:21:31)
> >> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Matthew Auld wrote:
> >> > On 19 March 2018 at 18:17, Chris
On 4 April 2018 at 10:13, Joonas Lahtinen
wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-03-19 22:21:31)
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Matthew Auld wrote:
>> > On 19 March 2018 at 18:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> >> Quoting
Quoting Jani Nikula (2018-03-19 22:21:31)
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > On 19 March 2018 at 18:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-03-19 18:08:54)
> >>> GEM_WARN_ON() was originally intended to be used
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 19 March 2018 at 18:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-03-19 18:08:54)
>>> GEM_WARN_ON() was originally intended to be used only as:
>>>
>>>if (GEM_WARN_ON(expr))
>>>
On 19 March 2018 at 18:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-03-19 18:08:54)
>> GEM_WARN_ON() was originally intended to be used only as:
>>
>>if (GEM_WARN_ON(expr))
>> ...
>>
>> but it just so happens to also work as simply:
>>
>>
Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-03-19 18:08:54)
> GEM_WARN_ON() was originally intended to be used only as:
>
>if (GEM_WARN_ON(expr))
> ...
>
> but it just so happens to also work as simply:
>
>GEM_WARN_ON(expr);
>
> since it just wraps WARN_ON, which is a little misleading since
GEM_WARN_ON() was originally intended to be used only as:
if (GEM_WARN_ON(expr))
...
but it just so happens to also work as simply:
GEM_WARN_ON(expr);
since it just wraps WARN_ON, which is a little misleading since for
!DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM builds the second case will actually