On ma, 2016-07-25 at 18:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > The future annotations will track the locking used for access to ensure > that it is always sufficient. We make the preparations now to present > the API ahead and to make sure that GCC can eliminate the unused > parameter. >
Is it at some point going to be other than struct_mutex? I do not feel the API change intuitive at all as it is. > Before: 6298417 3619610 696320 10614347 a1f64b vmlinux > After: 6298417 3619610 696320 10614347 a1f64b vmlinux > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 12 +++++--- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 49 > ++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence.c | 3 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.h | 38 +++++++++++++++---------- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_tiling.c | 3 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 3 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 29 +++++++++++++++---- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 12 +++++--- > 8 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index b41561bdfb85..16fa1f527ef5 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > @@ -155,10 +155,13 @@ describe_obj(struct seq_file *m, struct > drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > obj->base.write_domain); > for_each_engine_id(engine, dev_priv, id) > seq_printf(m, "%x ", > - i915_gem_active_get_seqno(&obj->last_read[id])); > + i915_gem_active_get_seqno(&obj->last_read[id], > + > &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex)); In functions where you use plenty of this, maybe make struct_mutex alias. But before that, what's wrong with passing dev_priv? Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
