On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:26:01PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 07:36:25PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> > /* Iterate over initialised rings */ >> > #define for_each_ring(ring__, dev_priv__, i__) \ >> > for ((i__) = 0; (i__) < I915_NUM_RINGS; (i__)++) \ >> > - if (((ring__) = &(dev_priv__)->ring[(i__)]), intel_ring_initialized((ring__))) >> > + for_each_if ((((ring__) = &(dev_priv__)->ring[(i__)]), intel_ring_initialized((ring__)))) >> >> Idly wondering if we would be happy with >> >> for_each_ring(ring__, dev_priv__) >> for ((ring__) = &(dev_priv__)->ring[0]; >> (ring__) <= &(dev_priv__)->ring[I915_NUM_RINGS]; >> (ring__)++) >> for_each_if(intel_ring_initialized(ring__)) >> >> ? >> >> The downside is that we have used i__ in several places rather than >> ring->id. > > Fwiw, 13 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-) Seems good, looks like you have the patch so I won't bother. v2 of my patch was merged to drm-misc now, so that complicates a bit. Perhaps the i__ to ring->id change could be a prep step. *shrug*. BR, Jani. > > Seems a reasonable shrinkage. > -Chris -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
