On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 03:52:36PM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote: > On 11/01/16 15:04, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > >On 11/01/16 14:36, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:08:40PM +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. > >> > >>But we could eliminate both, and the unsightly pointless assignment only > >>required to shut gcc up. > >> > >>Still preferring my patch. > > > >Ah I remember it now.. you were storing it in the pointer provided by > >the caller. I think that is significantly worse, sorry cannot approve that. > > > >Regards, > > > >Tvrtko > > Local variable good, pointer indirection through parameter bad. > > Reviewed-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> Needs a comment like now = 0; /* shut up dense gcc */, with that acked. -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
