On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:31:23PM -0300, Marlon Henrique Sanches wrote: > The comment referenced the flag name incorrectly as 'I915_EXEC_NORELOC' > (missing underscore). This patch corrects the spelling in the comment > only; there is no functional change. > > Signed-off-by: Marlon Henrique Sanches <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> pushing soon to drm-intel-gt-next Obrigado! > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > index 39c7c32e1e74..7a0dee4111cb 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c > @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ enum { > * we want to leave the object where it is and for all the existing > relocations > * to match. If the object is given a new address, or if userspace thinks the > * object is elsewhere, we have to parse all the relocation entries and > update > - * the addresses. Userspace can set the I915_EXEC_NORELOC flag to hint that > + * the addresses. Userspace can set the I915_EXEC_NO_RELOC flag to hint that > * all the target addresses in all of its objects match the value in the > * relocation entries and that they all match the presumed offsets given by > the > * list of execbuffer objects. Using this knowledge, we know that if we > haven't > -- > 2.34.1 >
