On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:59:26AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2016-07-27 at 12:14 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > --- a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> > @@ -727,11 +727,15 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 {
> > #define EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE (1<<2)
> > #define EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS (1<<3)
> > #define EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED (1<<4)
> > +#define EXEC_OBJECT_PAD_TO_SIZE (1<<5)
> > /* All remaining bits are MBZ and RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE */
> > -#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS (-(EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED<<1))
> > +#define __EXEC_OBJECT_UNKNOWN_FLAGS -(EXEC_OBJECT_PAD_TO_SIZE<<1)
>
> Do keep the () around, why not? With that fixed,
Why not? Just lost in rebasing. There's no need for the extra (), why
were they added?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
