On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 03:06:48PM +0800, Zhong Li wrote: > Signed-off-by: Zhong Li <zhong.li at intel.com> > --- > tests/gem_ring_sync_loop.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/gem_ring_sync_loop.c b/tests/gem_ring_sync_loop.c > index 955bf34..cb79e7c 100644 > --- a/tests/gem_ring_sync_loop.c > +++ b/tests/gem_ring_sync_loop.c > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ get_num_rings(int fd) > gp.param = I915_PARAM_HAS_BSD; > ret = drmIoctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp); > > - if ((ret == 0) & (*gp.value > 0)) > + if ((ret == 0) && (*gp.value > 0)) > num_rings++; > else > goto skip; > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ get_num_rings(int fd) > gp.param = I915_PARAM_HAS_BLT; > ret = drmIoctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp); > > - if ((ret == 0) & (*gp.value > 0)) > + if ((ret == 0) && (*gp.value > 0)) > num_rings++; > else > goto skip; > @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ get_num_rings(int fd) > gp.param = I915_PARAM_HAS_VEBOX; > ret = drmIoctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp); > > - if ((ret == 0) & (*gp.value > 0)) > + if ((ret == 0) && (*gp.value > 0)) > num_rings++; > else > goto skip; > -- > 1.7.9.5 > So when I went through the series initially, I had this squashed into patch 2. Unfortunately, I messed this up before I ended up pushing, so now we have broken get_num_rings for several patches. In the future when you submit a series like this, please add this kind of fix directly into the patch it fixes. Thanks. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
