On 25/11/15 09:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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
Hi,
I've done an implementation of for_each_engine(ring, dev_priv), and
converted a few uses of for_each_ring(ring, dev_priv, unused) to get rid
of the unused dummy variable. That works fine, so now I'm looking at
for_each_ring() for the cases where the variable IS used.
The comments above imply to me that the loop variable shouldn't really
be the index in dev_priv->ring[i], but rather the value of engine->id.
Is this correct?
Presumably there is at present no difference, i.e.
dev_priv->ring[i].id == i
(at least if the ring has been initialised?). So is the reason that
converting from index to id might give more flexibility in how to
organise the ring structures?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
