Am 12.12.2017 um 10:33 schrieb Roger He:
Change-Id: I491d4ceb8c98bb3d8e6e0ddef2330284ce2fe5f6 Signed-off-by: Roger He Hongbo.He@amd.com
I would squash this one with patch #6.
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c index eb8c568..22b6ca5 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c @@ -722,10 +722,9 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock); for (i = 0; i < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++i) { list_for_each_entry(bo, &man->lru[i], lru) {
if (bo->resv == resv) {if (list_empty(&bo->ddestroy))continue;} else {
if (!ctx ||!(ctx->on_alloc_stage &&bo->resv == ctx->resv)) {
Coding style: The lines stating with "!(ctx" and "bo->resv" are to far to the right.
Additional to that I think ctx is mandatory and doesn't need a check (but might be wrong). If it isn't it's probably time to make it mandatory.
And I would use (ctx->on_alloc_stage || list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) as check, we probably still want to be able to handle deleted BOs here during CS.
Christian.
locked = reservation_object_trylock(bo->resv); if (!locked) continue;