Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Infrastructure for supporting different GGTT views per object

From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Infrastructure for supporting different GGTT views per object
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:23:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <548EC4C2.8050107@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141215102426.GW27182@phenom.ffwll.local>

On 12/15/2014 10:24 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:58PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> index de241eb..c6610bc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> @@ -2098,8 +2098,7 @@ i915_gem_shrink(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>   			/* For the unbound phase, this should be a no-op! */
>>   			list_for_each_entry_safe(vma, v,
>>   						 &obj->vma_list, vma_link)
>> -				if (i915_vma_unbind(vma))
>> -					break;
>> +				i915_vma_unbind(vma);
>
> This hunk adds a new warning. It's the 2nd time a __must_check warning
> from someone from vpg london crept through all the premerge testing. Can
> you please double-check whether you have some crazy gcc flags settings or
> something in your builders?
>
> I've dropped the hunk locally.

Yes sorry, somehow I've lost the relevant flag from Kconfig. Doesn't 
matter for this hunk I suppose since it was in the air anyway.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx