Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Mark wait_for_engine() as maybe_unused

2017-09-25 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:09:45AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > The only call of wait_for_engine() is wrapped in a GEM_WARN_ON macro, > which confusingly suppresses the call unless CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM > is set. > > According to http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg128768.html the

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Mark wait_for_engine() as maybe_unused

2017-09-25 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:09:45AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > The only call of wait_for_engine() is wrapped in a GEM_WARN_ON macro, > which confusingly suppresses the call unless CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM > is set. > > According to http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg128768.html the

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Mark wait_for_engine() as maybe_unused

2017-09-25 Thread Nick Desaulniers
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Mark wait_for_engine() as maybe_unused

2017-09-25 Thread Nick Desaulniers
Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers

[PATCH] drm/i915: Mark wait_for_engine() as maybe_unused

2017-08-25 Thread Matthias Kaehlcke
The only call of wait_for_engine() is wrapped in a GEM_WARN_ON macro, which confusingly suppresses the call unless CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM is set. According to http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg128768.html the current behavior is correct, even though it's not obvious. Different

[PATCH] drm/i915: Mark wait_for_engine() as maybe_unused

2017-08-25 Thread Matthias Kaehlcke
The only call of wait_for_engine() is wrapped in a GEM_WARN_ON macro, which confusingly suppresses the call unless CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM is set. According to http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg128768.html the current behavior is correct, even though it's not obvious. Different