On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:24:53PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:20:51PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > @@ -640,7 +641,7 @@ static int logical_ring_wait_request(struct intel_ringbuffer *ringbuf, > > > break; > > > } > > > > > > - if (&request->list == &ring->request_list) > > > + if (WARN_ON(&request->list == &ring->request_list)) > > > return -ENOSPC; > > > > Checking for new_space < n (and initializing new_space to 0) would be a > > clearer check imo. But that's just a bikeshed. Same for the legacy one > > below. > > If you watch later, I remove the double update of ringbuf->space. > However, I am quite found of the if (iter == list_head) return -ENOSPC, > so I am a bit biased. Oh it was mostly that I had to double-check the loop above (which was out of the diff context). With context it's all good. I'm a really lazy reviewer ;-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
