On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 02:40:48PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ke, 2015-05-06 at 12:20 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 01:16:30PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 04/30/2015 12:20 PM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > >@@ -495,7 +503,10 @@ i915_ggtt_view_equal(const struct i915_ggtt_view *a, > > > > if (WARN_ON(!a || !b)) > > > > return false; > > > > > > > >- return a->type == b->type; > > > >+ if (a->type != b->type) > > > >+ return false; > > > >+ > > > >+ return !memcmp(&a->params, &b->params, sizeof(a->params)); > > > > > > Still don't like this, would this be so bad: > > > > > > if (a->type != PARTIAL) > > > return a->type == b->type; > > > else > > > return !memcmp(...) > > > > Why do we even need this? memcmp implies comparing just one part of the > > struct, doesn't it? Of course this means we need to clear it, but imo > > that's the rtdt anyway. > > I only noticed this comment now (just sent v3 of the series out), I'm > fine with leaving it like it was in the revision 1, which means that the > last line is return !memcmp(..), so if the patch is otherwise OK, shall > I make a one more revision, or will you merge manually? Already pulled in, please do a follow-up patch. Thanks, 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
