[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 05/33] drm/i915: Reduce amount of duplicate buffer information captured on error

[Joonas Lahtinen]

On ke, 2016-08-10 at 08:15 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > 
> > On su, 2016-08-07 at 15:45 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > 
> > > -	if (i) {
> > > +	active_bo = NULL;
> > Could be initialized at declaration for better readability.
> No. I disagree strongly. I dislike having to go back to the beginning of
> the block to check to see if was initialised before the if-chain that
> otherwise sets the value.

GCC has captured such an uninitialized variable scenario for quite a
while. Just increases noise.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  /* Capture all registers which don't fit into another category. */
> > >  static void i915_capture_reg_state(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >  				   struct drm_i915_error_state *error)
> > > @@ -1436,10 +1402,12 @@ void i915_capture_error_state(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >  
> > >  	i915_capture_gen_state(dev_priv, error);
> > >  	i915_capture_reg_state(dev_priv, error);
> > > -	i915_gem_capture_buffers(dev_priv, error);
> > >  	i915_gem_record_fences(dev_priv, error);
> > >  	i915_gem_record_rings(dev_priv, error);
> > >  
> > > +	i915_capture_active_buffers(dev_priv, error);
> > > +	i915_capture_pinned_buffers(dev_priv, error);
> > > +
> > Any specific reason for reordering here?
> Different varieties of state capture, trying to use whitespace for
> grouping.

Maybe keep it at current place and add whitespace before and after,
making it three blocks?

Regards, joonas

> -Chris
> 
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation