On ke, 2016-08-10 at 08:15 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:04:16AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >
> > On su, 2016-08-07 at 15:45 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > - if (i) {
> > > + active_bo = NULL;
> > Could be initialized at declaration for better readability.
> No. I disagree strongly. I dislike having to go back to the beginning of
> the block to check to see if was initialised before the if-chain that
> otherwise sets the value.
GCC has captured such an uninitialized variable scenario for quite a
while. Just increases noise.
>
> >
> > >
> > > /* Capture all registers which don't fit into another category. */
> > > static void i915_capture_reg_state(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > struct drm_i915_error_state *error)
> > > @@ -1436,10 +1402,12 @@ void i915_capture_error_state(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >
> > > i915_capture_gen_state(dev_priv, error);
> > > i915_capture_reg_state(dev_priv, error);
> > > - i915_gem_capture_buffers(dev_priv, error);
> > > i915_gem_record_fences(dev_priv, error);
> > > i915_gem_record_rings(dev_priv, error);
> > >
> > > + i915_capture_active_buffers(dev_priv, error);
> > > + i915_capture_pinned_buffers(dev_priv, error);
> > > +
> > Any specific reason for reordering here?
> Different varieties of state capture, trying to use whitespace for
> grouping.
Maybe keep it at current place and add whitespace before and after,
making it three blocks?
Regards, joonas
> -Chris
>
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
