On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:54:44AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Monday 30 May 2016 16:54:10 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:58:27AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > > Op 30-05-16 om 11:18 schreef Laurent Pinchart: > > >> Hi Daniel, > > >> > > >> Thank you for the patch. > > >> > > >> This looks good to me as the resulting code is mostly similar. However, > > >> the for_each_*_in_state macros end with an for_each_if() that tests if > > >> the object's state is NULL, which isn't present in this code. I'm > > >> wondering whether that was an oversight on my side possibly leading to a > > >> crash when dereferencing a NULL state, or an unneeded check in the > > >> macros. Can atomic_state->*_states[i] be NULL if atomic_state->*[i] is > > >> not NULL ? > > > > > > Not in any normal case. > > > > Yeah, the drm_atomic_get_*_state functions only ever fill in both of > > neither. If this gets out of sync it's a bug ;-) > > Should the check be removed then ? Or replaced by a WARN_ON() ? In all the places I converted here I nuked those checks, since they moved into the loop now. Not sure what checks you're talking about. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
