On 11.09.2012 18:12, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Christian K?nig
> <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
>> It is unnecessary when we remove the va in drm_close.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian K?nig <deathsimple at vodafone.de>
> NAK there is case for which drm_close is not call like ib pool and
> other iirc. This clear va is really a safety net.
Ah, ok that makes sense. Sorry I was just a bit confused about that.
Christian.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 11 -----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> index 8d23b7e..d210fe5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> @@ -46,16 +46,6 @@ static void radeon_bo_clear_surface_reg(struct radeon_bo
>> *bo);
>> * function are calling it.
>> */
>>
>> -void radeon_bo_clear_va(struct radeon_bo *bo)
>> -{
>> - struct radeon_bo_va *bo_va, *tmp;
>> -
>> - list_for_each_entry_safe(bo_va, tmp, &bo->va, bo_list) {
>> - /* remove from all vm address space */
>> - radeon_vm_bo_rmv(bo->rdev, bo_va->vm, bo);
>> - }
>> -}
>> -
>> static void radeon_ttm_bo_destroy(struct ttm_buffer_object *tbo)
>> {
>> struct radeon_bo *bo;
>> @@ -65,7 +55,6 @@ static void radeon_ttm_bo_destroy(struct ttm_buffer_object
>> *tbo)
>> list_del_init(&bo->list);
>> mutex_unlock(&bo->rdev->gem.mutex);
>> radeon_bo_clear_surface_reg(bo);
>> - radeon_bo_clear_va(bo);
>> drm_gem_object_release(&bo->gem_base);
>> kfree(bo);
>> }
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
