Kerneldoc could help with getting grip of the convention introduced
here.
Does this really have visible results in real world workloads? It adds
further complexity.
On ti, 2016-09-20 at 09:29 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> @@ -2383,6 +2390,28 @@ i915_gem_object_has_active_engine(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> return obj->flags & BIT(engine + I915_BO_ACTIVE_SHIFT);
> }
>
> +static inline bool
> +i915_gem_object_has_active_reference(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> +{
> + return obj->flags & I915_BO_ACTIVE_REF;
> +}
>
We're still having a mix of set_bit and manual fondling. Oh well.
> @@ -2413,6 +2442,11 @@ static inline void i915_vma_put(struct i915_vma *vma)
> > i915_gem_object_put(vma->obj);
> }
>
> +static inline void i915_vma_put_internal(struct i915_vma *vma)
Not __i915_vma_put? We only have one _internal function, lets not add
another style mixing here.
> +void __i915_gem_object_release_unless_active(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> +{
> + if (!obj)
> + return;
I know I hate this.
Anyway,
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
