On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:25:00PM +0300, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:

On 04/10/2019 15:16, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:

...

Remove dead code, likely overseened during review process.

Signed-off-by: Zbigniew Kempczyński zbigniew.kempczynski@intel.com Cc: Chunming Zhou david1.zhou@amd.com Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch Cc: Jason Ekstrand jason@jlekstrand.net

---

drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c index 4b5c7b0ed714..21a22e39c9fa 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c @@ -192,8 +192,6 @@ static void drm_syncobj_fence_add_wait(struct drm_syncobj *syncobj, if (!fence || dma_fence_chain_find_seqno(&fence, wait->point)) { dma_fence_put(fence); list_add_tail(&wait->node, &syncobj->cb_list);

• } else if (!fence) {

• wait->fence = dma_fence_get_stub();
  

  } else { wait->fence = fence; }

@@ -856,8 +854,6 @@ static void syncobj_wait_syncobj_func(struct drm_syncobj *syncobj, if (!fence || dma_fence_chain_find_seqno(&fence, wait->point)) { dma_fence_put(fence); return;

• } else if (!fence) {

• wait->fence = dma_fence_get_stub();
  

  } else { wait->fence = fence; }

Like Chris said, dma_fence_chain_find_seqno() will update the fence pointer, so a subsequent check might not be dealing with the same value.

A bit cheeky, but...

Feels like warrants a comment, I missed this one too. Maybe even extract it into one common function since it's the same code in both places? -Daniel