[PATCH 05/25] vmwgfx: Make sure the reserved area is at the start of vram

[Jakob Bornecrantz]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
<konrad.wilk at oracle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> From: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob at vmware.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob at vmware.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c |    5 ++++-
>>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> index c14eb76..8ac6cee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c
>> @@ -716,7 +716,10 @@ static int vmw_surface_dmabuf_pin(struct vmw_framebuffer *vfb)
>>       struct vmw_framebuffer_surface *vfbs =
>>               vmw_framebuffer_to_vfbs(&vfb->base);
>>       unsigned long size = vfbs->base.base.pitch * vfbs->base.base.height;
>> -     int ret;
>> +     struct ttm_placement ne_placement = vmw_vram_ne_placement;
>> +     int ret = 0;
>
> So why the 'int ret = 0' ? That looks like it belongs to
> a different patch?

It doesn't do anything and is not a part of any later patch,
then again its okay to be paranoid.

Cheers Jakob.