[PATCH 2/4] drm/ttm: cleanup ttm_buffer_object_transfer
Felix Kuehling
felix.kuehling at amd.com
Fri Nov 15 22:27:34 UTC 2019
The subject doesn't match the change. This changes ttm_bo_cleanup_refs,
not ttm_buffer_object_transfer.
On 2019-11-11 9:58 a.m., Christian König wrote:
> The function is always called with deleted BOs.
>
> While at it cleanup the indentation as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 12 +++---------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> index 7e7925fecd9e..1178980f4147 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> @@ -527,14 +527,9 @@ static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> bool interruptible, bool no_wait_gpu,
> bool unlock_resv)
> {
> - struct dma_resv *resv;
> + struct dma_resv *resv = &bo->base._resv;
> int ret;
>
> - if (unlikely(list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)))
Would it make sense to add a BUG_ON or WARN_ON here to check the
assumption made by this code?
Regards,
Felix
> - resv = bo->base.resv;
> - else
> - resv = &bo->base._resv;
> -
> if (dma_resv_test_signaled_rcu(resv, true))
> ret = 0;
> else
> @@ -547,9 +542,8 @@ static int ttm_bo_cleanup_refs(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> spin_unlock(&ttm_bo_glob.lru_lock);
>
> - lret = dma_resv_wait_timeout_rcu(resv, true,
> - interruptible,
> - 30 * HZ);
> + lret = dma_resv_wait_timeout_rcu(resv, true, interruptible,
> + 30 * HZ);
>
> if (lret < 0)
> return lret;
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list