On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:47:26PM +0000, Chris Wilson 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 a reasonable shrinkage. Maybe for_each_engine even, and phase out for_each_ring completely? -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
