On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 07:03:32PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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 ... ;) > Ok fine, nuck it, i will readd it if needed once i have time to get back to this. Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
