On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
> 2014-03-25 0:53 GMT+09:00 Damien Lespiau :
>> As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to
>> drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no good
>> reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug b
2014-03-25 0:53 GMT+09:00 Damien Lespiau :
> As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to
> drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no good
> reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug before calling drm_ut_debug_printk(),
> we skip those in
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to
> drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no
> good
> reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug before calling
> drm_ut_debug_printk(),
>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 03:53:07PM +, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to
> drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no good
> reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug before calling drm_ut_debug_printk(
As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to
drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no good
reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug before calling drm_ut_debug_printk(),
we skip those instructions that only need to be executed when loggi
