On 11/01/16 08:42, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:29:45AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
No need to call ktime_get_raw_ns twice per unlimited wait and can
also elimate a local variable.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index de98dc41fb9f..c4f69579eb7a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ int __i915_wait_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req,
int state = interruptible ? TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE : TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
unsigned long timeout_expire;
- s64 before, now;
+ s64 before = 0;
Is gcc really this dense? Should be easy for it to spot that both branches
depend upon the same condition. Please remove that assignment. With that
changed:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
It is this dense, at least gcc 4.8.4 on my machine. :(
Do you want to remove it regardless of the warning?
Rrgards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
