On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 03:12:27PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > After staring at the list_for_each_safe macros for a bit, our current > invocation of list_safe_reset_next in execlists_schedule() simply > reduces to list_for_each. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]> -Michał > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > index 8c9d6cef2482..ffc20d7b754e 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ static void execlists_schedule(struct > drm_i915_gem_request *request, int prio) > * end result is a topological list of requests in reverse order, the > * last element in the list is the request we must execute first. > */ > - list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, p, &dfs, dfs_link) { > + list_for_each_entry(dep, &dfs, dfs_link) { > struct i915_priotree *pt = dep->signaler; > > /* > @@ -1043,8 +1043,6 @@ static void execlists_schedule(struct > drm_i915_gem_request *request, int prio) > if (prio > READ_ONCE(p->signaler->priority)) > list_move_tail(&p->dfs_link, &dfs); > } > - > - list_safe_reset_next(dep, p, dfs_link); > } > > /* > -- > 2.15.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
