[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/gem: Look for waitboosting across the whole object prior to individual waits

[Karolina Drobnik]

Hi Andi,

On 08.07.2022 13:38, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Karolina,
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>> +	dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
>>>>> +		if (dma_fence_is_i915(fence) &&
>>>>> +		    !i915_request_started(to_request(fence)))
>>>>> +			intel_rps_boost(to_request(fence));
>>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> you can remove the brackets here.
>>>
>>> Andi
>>
>> Would you like me to send v2 for it?
> 
> if the committer takes care of removing it, then no need,
> otherwise, please yes, resend it. Even if it's a stupid nitpick,
> if it gets applied it would be very difficult to get it fixed[*].
> 
> Didn't checkpatch.pl complain about it?

Right, thanks for explaining this. checkpatch.pl only complained about 
unwrapped References tag (a false positive), but I can delete the braces 
and resend the patchset.

> If you are going to resend it, you can add my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com>
> 
> also here.

OK, will so do, thanks


All the best,
Karolina

> Thanks,
> Andi
> 
> [*] Because just minor coding style patches are generally
> rejected, the only way for fixing style issues would be if:
> 
>   1. someone is working in that part of the code
>   2. someone will sneak in the code fix in some unrelated patch
>      screwing up git blame
>   3. someone will send a big series on this file and have some
>      trivial coding style patches in it.
> 
> Amongst the three above, number '2' is the one I dislike the
> most, but unfortunately that's also the most used.