On 03/19/2015 09:05 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 05:41:26PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/09/2015 09:55 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Since we use obj->active as a hint in many places throughout the code,
knowing its state in debugfs is extremely useful.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 042ad2fec484..809f6eadc10c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -123,8 +123,9 @@ describe_obj(struct seq_file *m, struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
struct i915_vma *vma;
int pin_count = 0;
- seq_printf(m, "%pK: %s%s%s %8zdKiB %02x %02x %x %x %x%s%s%s",
+ seq_printf(m, "%pK: %s%s%s%s %8zdKiB %02x %02x %x %x %x%s%s%s",
&obj->base,
+ obj->active ? "*" : " ",
%c etc would maybe be more compact code? (Hey I have to earn my
bike-shedding badge somehow! ;) Anyway,
The rationale for the empty flags to use " " was to keep the fields
aligned. I'm still about 60:40 whether that was a good idea in terms of
formatting the debugfs files.
Doesn't matter really, my joke was only about two chars being smaller
than two one-char strings, weak joke yes. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
