On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:25:07AM +0200, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:11:45PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Only ever assigned, never used. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > NAK > > private was to be use when doing range restricted allocation > somehow the patch that use it was drop/forgot/lost along the > was i will try to see i have it and redo it if not. I don't agree for the following reasons: 1) drm_mm _does_ implement range-restricted allocations. And it does not use the private pointer to do so. My new scanning algorithm doesn't implement this (i915 doesn't use range restricted allocations), but it's damn trivial to add. 2) The private pointer was used as a back-pointer to the object. If something like this is needed, making struct drm_mm_node embedable looks like the right approach (perhaps with some driver-private bitfields to distinguish different case). I'm still in the process of shooting down the driver_private gem_object pointer and I don't like doing this right away again ... Can you please point me to the code that needs this private pointer? Then I can see in which way I'm wrong ... ;) > Cheers, > Jerome Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel@xxxxxxxx Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
