Am 12.12.2017 um 10:33 schrieb Roger He:
Change-Id: I491d4ceb8c98bb3d8e6e0ddef2330284ce2fe5f6
Signed-off-by: Roger He <Hongbo.He@xxxxxxx>
I would squash this one with patch #6.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index eb8c568..22b6ca5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -722,10 +722,9 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock);
for (i = 0; i < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++i) {
list_for_each_entry(bo, &man->lru[i], lru) {
- if (bo->resv == resv) {
- if (list_empty(&bo->ddestroy))
- continue;
- } else {
+ if (!ctx ||
+ !(ctx->on_alloc_stage &&
+ bo->resv == ctx->resv)) {
Coding style: The lines stating with "!(ctx" and "bo->resv" are to far
to the right.
Additional to that I think ctx is mandatory and doesn't need a check
(but might be wrong). If it isn't it's probably time to make it mandatory.
And I would use (ctx->on_alloc_stage || list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) as
check, we probably still want to be able to handle deleted BOs here
during CS.
Christian.
locked = reservation_object_trylock(bo->resv);
if (!locked)
continue;
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
