Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-03-03 09:54:02) > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-03-02 20:07:54) > > On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:19:29 +0100, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio > > <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > some of the static functions used from capture() have the "i915_" > > > prefix while other don't; most of them take i915 as a parameter, but one > > > of them derives it internally from error->i915. Let's be consistent by > > > avoiding prefix for static functions and always providing i915 as a > > > parameter. > > > > Maybe this one static function that derived i915 from error->i915 is the > > one that did it correctly? I see no point in passing dev_priv directly > > as extra param as it is already attached to passed gpu error state. > > Yeah, we'll take readability over saving an instruction or two as the > compiler should be clever enough to do the work for us... I wonder if a > flatten directive would help... add/remove: 0/3 grow/shrink: 1/0 up/down: 11381/-1525 (9856) Function old new delta capture 6159 17540 +11381 capture_object 135 - -135 capture_error_bo 493 - -493 i915_error_object_create 897 - -897 Waa! That wasn't quite the effect I was expecting. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
