On ke, 2016-07-27 at 12:14 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> @@ -2979,7 +2980,7 @@ i915_vma_insert(struct i915_vma *vma, u64 size, u64 alignment, u64 flags)
> u64 min_alignment;
> int ret;
>
> - GEM_BUG_ON(vma->bound);
> + GEM_BUG_ON(vma->flags & (I915_VMA_GLOBAL_BIND | I915_VMA_LOCAL_BIND));
How bout i915_vma_is_bound?
> /* Pin early to prevent the shrinker/eviction logic from destroying
> @@ -3712,7 +3714,7 @@ i915_vma_pin(struct i915_vma *vma, u64 size, u64 alignment, u64 flags)
> */
> __i915_vma_pin(vma);
>
> - if (!bound) {
> + if ((bound & (I915_VMA_GLOBAL_BIND | I915_VMA_LOCAL_BIND)) == 0) {
In this case especially !(bound & ...) looks far more readable. Again,
I'm against flip-flopping between styles, but I understand these are
old patches, so we can unify stuff at the end of churn.
> @@ -3682,8 +3682,8 @@ void __iomem *i915_vma_pin_iomap(struct i915_vma *vma)
> if (WARN_ON(!vma->obj->map_and_fenceable))
> return IO_ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!vma->is_ggtt);
> - GEM_BUG_ON((vma->bound & GLOBAL_BIND) == 0);
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_vma_is_ggtt(vma));
> + GEM_BUG_ON((vma->flags & I915_VMA_GLOBAL_BIND) == 0);
Again !(vma->flags & ) is more readable.
But GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_vma_is_bound(vma)) would again be possible.
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
