Jonas, On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:55:19AM +0100, Jonas Lundqvist wrote: > Hi Jeremiah, > > On 12/30/2014 11:52 PM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote: > > You changed 'i' but you didn't explain in your log message why you did this. > > I can change the commit message to something more generic. "Move code > outside of locked mutex" or similar. > That still doesn't explain why you changed the 'i' variable. > > Does this change really improve anything? It may work the same with the > > locks moved around. But if you look at the function as a whole, the > > locks encapsulate the body of this function nicely. I like the original > > design better. > > The locking was already done this way, ie after the seq_printf, in the > functions drm_clients_info() and drm_gem_name_info() in thr same file. > So this change is really more of an alignment. > Your right, those two have have the lock after the seq_printf. But the drm_bufs_info() function has its lock before the seq_printf. So before your change about half are one way and half are the other. I am still not convinced that either of these ways is better or makes any difference whatsoever. > Best regards > Jonas > -- - Jeremiah Mahler _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
