On 29 February 2016 at 16:16, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
>
> On 29/02/16 11:13, Dave Gordon wrote:
>>
>> After the recent addition of drm_malloc_gfp(), it was noticed that
>> some callers of these functions has swapped the parameters in the
>> call - it's supposed to be 'number of members' and 'sizeof
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 04:16:57PM +, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> i915 cleanups are good but I am unsure of whether it is good to add
> this constant constraints. All current code seems to use it like
> that, true, but I am not sure that it should be a requirement.
The drm_mem_util allocators are
On 29/02/16 11:13, Dave Gordon wrote:
> After the recent addition of drm_malloc_gfp(), it was noticed that
> some callers of these functions has swapped the parameters in the
> call - it's supposed to be 'number of members' and 'sizeof(element)',
> but a few callers had got the size first and the
After the recent addition of drm_malloc_gfp(), it was noticed that
some callers of these functions has swapped the parameters in the
call - it's supposed to be 'number of members' and 'sizeof(element)',
but a few callers had got the size first and the count second. This
isn't otherwise detected bec
