I mistyped and added an extra _request_ to __i915_gem_active_get_rcu()
Also, the same happened to another comment for i915_gem_active_get_rcu()
Reported-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
index 06d1267e733d..76314e527cfd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
@@ -360,7 +360,7 @@ i915_gem_request_alloc(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
* We use RCU to look up requests in flight. The lookups may
* race with the request being allocated from the slab freelist.
* That is the request we are writing to here, may be in the process
- * of being read by __i915_gem_active_get_request_rcu(). As such,
+ * of being read by __i915_gem_active_get_rcu(). As such,
* we have to be very careful when overwriting the contents. During
* the RCU lookup, we change chase the request->engine pointer,
* read the request->fence.seqno and increment the reference count.
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
index 43e545e44352..bf9a6e56e719 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ struct intel_engine_cs {
/* An RCU guarded pointer to the last request. No reference is
* held to the request, users must carefully acquire a reference to
- * the request using i915_gem_active_get_request_rcu(), or hold the
+ * the request using i915_gem_active_get_rcu(), or hold the
* struct_mutex.
*/
struct i915_gem_active last_request;
--
2.8.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
