On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:18:32AM +0200, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > >> From: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jakob Bornecrantz <jakob@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 5 ++++- > >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > >> index c14eb76..8ac6cee 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > >> @@ -716,7 +716,10 @@ static int vmw_surface_dmabuf_pin(struct vmw_framebuffer *vfb) > >> struct vmw_framebuffer_surface *vfbs = > >> vmw_framebuffer_to_vfbs(&vfb->base); > >> unsigned long size = vfbs->base.base.pitch * vfbs->base.base.height; > >> - int ret; > >> + struct ttm_placement ne_placement = vmw_vram_ne_placement; > >> + int ret = 0; > > > > So why the 'int ret = 0' ? That looks like it belongs to > > a different patch? > > It doesn't do anything and is not a part of any later patch, > then again its okay to be paranoid. Ok. Just looked odd .. but no biggie. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
