On 13/03/15 23:37, Jan Vesely wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 22:56 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
On 27 February 2015 at 18:07, Jan Vesely jan.vesely@rutgers.edu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely jan.vesely@rutgers.edu
tests/exynos/exynos_fimg2d_test.c | 4 +--- xf86drm.c | 9 ++++++--- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
...
@@ -333,7 +336,6 @@ static int drmOpenDevice(dev_t dev, int minor, int type) drm_server_info->get_perms(&serv_group, &serv_mode); devmode = serv_mode ? serv_mode : DRM_DEV_MODE; devmode &= ~(S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH);
group = (serv_group >= 0) ? serv_group : DRM_DEV_GID;#if !defined(UDEV) @@ -354,6 +356,7 @@ static int drmOpenDevice(dev_t dev, int minor, int type) }
if (drm_server_info) {
group = (serv_group >= 0) ? serv_group : DRM_DEV_GID;I think you can leave this back where it was. It doesn't seem to bring anything beneficial.
"group" variable is now only available #if !defined(UDEV), so I can;'t really move it back without adding a pair of ifdefs, moving it here looked nicer than adding another set of #if/#endif.
I wanted to move the declaration here as well, but I'm not sure how it'd play with old/broken compilers that need to be supported.
Got confused in the #ifdef spaghetti. Comment withdrawn.
Thanks Emil