On 07/22/2010 07:56 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:12:37PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On 07/12/2010 06:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
327 pages_to_free[freed_pages++] = p;
328 /* We can only remove NUM_PAGES_TO_ALLOC at a time. */
329 if (freed_pages>= NUM_PAGES_TO_ALLOC) {
330 /* remove range of pages from the pool */
331 __list_del(p->lru.prev,&pool->list);
Why do we use p->lru.prev here when we use&p->lru in other
places?
332
333 ttm_pool_update_free_locked(pool, freed_pages);
334 /**
335 * Because changing page caching is costly
336 * we unlock the pool to prevent stalling.
Thanks for answering about the wb vs uncached, but I'm still confused why we use
&p->lru in most places and p->lru.prev in this place.
regards,
dan carpenter
This is because it use __list_del to remove a whole part of the list.
/*
* Delete a list entry by making the prev/next entries
* point to each other.
*
* This is only for internal list manipulation where we know
* the prev/next entries already!
*/
static inline void __list_del(struct list_head * prev, struct list_head * next)
{
»·······next->prev = prev;
»·······prev->next = next;
}
Cheers,
Jerome
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
