The "if (!p && !p->dev)" condition isn't right because || was intended instead of &&. But actually, "p" is the list cursor and so it's always non-NULL and we can just remove that bit. We can remove the another similar check as well.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c index 6678abc..1cf4c2c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c @@ -930,10 +930,8 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_get_num_unused_pages(void) unsigned total = 0;
mutex_lock(&_manager->lock); - list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) { - if (p) - total += p->pool->npages_free; - } + list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) + total += p->pool->npages_free; mutex_unlock(&_manager->lock); return total; } @@ -1023,7 +1021,7 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) { unsigned nr_free;
- if (!p && !p->dev) + if (!p->dev) continue; if (shrink_pages == 0) break;
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:50:54AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
The "if (!p && !p->dev)" condition isn't right because || was intended instead of &&. But actually, "p" is the list cursor and so it's always non-NULL and we can just remove that bit. We can remove the another similar check as well.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com
Reviewed-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c index 6678abc..1cf4c2c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c @@ -930,10 +930,8 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_get_num_unused_pages(void) unsigned total = 0;
mutex_lock(&_manager->lock);
- list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) {
if (p)total += p->pool->npages_free;- }
- list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools)
total += p->pool->npages_free;} @@ -1023,7 +1021,7 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) { unsigned nr_free;
if (!p && !p->dev)
if (!p->dev) continue;
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:34:00AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:50:54AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
The "if (!p && !p->dev)" condition isn't right because || was intended instead of &&. But actually, "p" is the list cursor and so it's always
Duh!
non-NULL and we can just remove that bit. We can remove the another similar check as well.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com
Reviewed-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
And Acked-by me.
Jerome, since you have the patches (And are thinking to send a GIT PULL to Dave) in your tree, could you include this patch in your queue?
Or would you prefer I do at some other point of time?
Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c index 6678abc..1cf4c2c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_page_alloc_dma.c @@ -930,10 +930,8 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_get_num_unused_pages(void) unsigned total = 0;
mutex_lock(&_manager->lock);
- list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) {
if (p)total += p->pool->npages_free;- }
- list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools)
total += p->pool->npages_free;} @@ -1023,7 +1021,7 @@ static int ttm_dma_pool_mm_shrink(struct shrinker *shrink, list_for_each_entry(p, &_manager->pools, pools) { unsigned nr_free;
if (!p && !p->dev)
if (!p->dev) continue;
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" konrad.wilk@oracle.com To: "Jerome Glisse" j.glisse@gmail.com Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "Jerome Glisse" jglisse@redhat.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, "Thomas Hellstrom" thellstrom@vmware.com, "Dan Carpenter" dan.carpenter@oracle.com Sent: Thursday, 8 December, 2011 4:53:34 PM Subject: Re: [patch] drm/ttm: fix condition (and vs or)
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:34:00AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:50:54AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
The "if (!p && !p->dev)" condition isn't right because || was intended instead of &&. But actually, "p" is the list cursor and so it's always
Duh!
non-NULL and we can just remove that bit. We can remove the another similar check as well.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com
Reviewed-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
And Acked-by me.
Jerome, since you have the patches (And are thinking to send a GIT PULL to Dave) in your tree, could you include this patch in your queue?
I've taken the TTM changes into drm-next already, just reviewing the radeon stuff.
But if that appeared on top in Jerome's tree I can steal it.
Dave.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Dan Carpenter -
David Airlie -
Jerome Glisse -
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk