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

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:18:32AM +0200, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
> 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.

Ok. Just looked odd .. but no biggie.