On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:09:16AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:13:33AM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > I don't think the checking of resources in this function is very > > atomic-like, but it should definitely not use a macro that's about > > to be removed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintai...@vmware.com> > > Cc: Sinclair Yeh <s...@vmware.com> > > Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellst...@vmware.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > > index 1cd67b10a0d9..64f66ff97fab 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_kms.c > > @@ -1536,8 +1536,7 @@ vmw_kms_atomic_check_modeset(struct drm_device *dev, > > Afaics vmw_kms_atomic_check_modeset should be static. Feel free to include > or not include that bikeshed. > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Yeah, good point. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
