On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 09:25:35PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:32:27PM +0200, David Herrmann wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > > For an upcoming patch where we introduce the i915 VMA, it's ideal to > > > have the drm_mm_node as part of the VMA struct (ie. it's pre-allocated). > > > Part of the conversion to VMAs is to kill off obj->gtt_space. Doing this > > > will break a bunch of code, but amongst them are 2 callers of > > > drm_mm_create_block(), both related to stolen memory. > > > > > > It also allows us to embed the drm_mm_node into the object currently > > > which provides a nice transition over to the new code. > > > > > > v2: Reordered to do before ripping out obj->gtt_offset. > > > Some minor cleanups made available because of reordering. > > > > > > v3: s/continue/break on failed stolen node allocation (David) > > > Set obj->gtt_space on failed node allocation (David) > > > Only unref stolen (fix double free) on failed create_stolen (David) > > > Free node, and NULL it in failed create_stolen (David) > > > Add back accidentally removed newline (David) > > > > > > CC: <dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org> > > > CC: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann at gmail.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > > > > I already suspected that you'd embed drm_mm_node in a follow-up patch > > but I am not subscribed to intel-gfx so I didn't get the other > > patches. Looks good now. > > > > Reviewed-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann at gmail.com> > > Ok, I've discussed this a bit with Dave on irc and he's a bit unhappy with > the creat_block name. After a bit of chatting with Ben I think we should > go with > > int drm_mm_reserve_node(struct drm_mm *mm, struct drm_mm_node *node); > > The start/size/color arguments would then be passed in through the > drm_mm_node argument. Ben asked whether that's not too much poking around > in drm_mm_node internals, but imo those three pieces of it are part of the > public interface to drm_mm users. Do you mind if I leave the patch as is, since it's reviewed, and put the rename patch on top? I have a long history of screwing up simple rebases. > > Also, the patch as-is conflicts a bit too badly with my current tree. So > can you please apply the little bikeshed, rebase, and then rebase the > other patches in this series that I haven't merged on top of this? > > Thanks, Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
