On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 02:49:49PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2017-01-11 at 21:09 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > High-level testing of the struct drm_mm by verifying our handling of
> > weird requests to i915_vma_pin.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > +static int igt_vma_pin1(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = arg;
> > + const struct pin_mode modes[] = {
> > + [0] = { 0, PIN_GLOBAL, assert_pin_valid },
>
> Now that pin_mode is introduced far, use named initializers (especially
> when the array starts with plenty of zeros in the first column). Or at
> the least, make a comment /* size, flags, assert_func */
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > +
> > + [24] = { 8192, PIN_GLOBAL | PIN_OFFSET_BIAS |
> > (i915->ggtt.mappable_end - 4096), assert_pin_valid },
> > +
> > +#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG_GEM)
>
> Better drop the unnecessarily verbose [NN] =, if an another #if section
> is added, it'll be bad. And no real benefit either, inserting a test in
> the middle will be bad too, it's not like we never forget something
> from first iteration.
It was providing some information in the error report, and I was too
lazy to include the appropriate string. Why do you never let me be lazy!
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
