On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 04:10:18PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > > + > > + intel_ring_init_seqno(ring, seqno); > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ring->sync_seqno); i++) > > + ring->sync_seqno[i] = 0; > > } > > I remember pondering about resetting sync_seqno's > inside intel_ring_init_seqno(). Is there reason > not to? Not a strong one. Conceptually the ring->sync_seqno[] belong to the other rings, so I felt it was clumsy for intel_ring_init_seqno() to falsely claim ownership and reset its own sync_seqno. But I think we can refactor away those qualms with a comment. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
