Hi Daniel, On Friday 03 Jun 2016 08:55:36 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:54:44AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > 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. I'm talking about the for_each_if() check inside the for_each_*_in_state macros. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
