On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
>>> wrote:
Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple refer
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Vetter
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> Onl
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Vetter
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> Onl
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
>>> wrote:
Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple referenc
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
> wrote:
>> Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
>> count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be explicit about things
>> than hide the refcount dance.
>
> I'm not
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
>> wrote:
>>> Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
>>> count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be expl
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
wrote:
> Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
> count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be explicit about things
> than hide the refcount dance.
I'm not really sure I like this one.. I guess it could be that I'm
j
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter
>> wrote:
>>> Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
>>> count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be expli
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
>> count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be explicit about things
>> than hide the refcount dance.
>
> I'm not re
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
> count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be explicit about things
> than hide the refcount dance.
I'm not really sure I like this one.. I guess it could be that I'm
ju
Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be explicit about things
than hide the refcount dance.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c | 3 ++-
include/drm/drmP.h| 7 ---
2 files changed, 2 in
Only one callsite and since ->handle_count is not a simple reference
count (it can resurrect) it's imo better to be explicit about things
than hide the refcount dance.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c | 3 ++-
include/drm/drmP.h| 7 ---
2 files changed, 2 in
12 matches
Mail list logo