On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:18:32AM +0200, Jakob Bornecrantz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk konrad.wilk@oracle.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 04:10:01PM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
From: Jakob Bornecrantz jakob@vmware.com
Signed-off-by: Jakob Bornecrantz jakob@vmware.com Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom thellstrom@vmware.com
drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 5 ++++- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c index c14eb76..8ac6cee 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c @@ -716,7 +716,10 @@ static int vmw_surface_dmabuf_pin(struct vmw_framebuffer *vfb) struct vmw_framebuffer_surface *vfbs = vmw_framebuffer_to_vfbs(&vfb->base); unsigned long size = vfbs->base.base.pitch * vfbs->base.base.height;
- int ret;
- struct ttm_placement ne_placement = vmw_vram_ne_placement;
- int ret = 0;
So why the 'int ret = 0' ? That looks like it belongs to a different patch?
It doesn't do anything and is not a part of any later patch, then again its okay to be paranoid.
Ok. Just looked odd .. but no biggie.