Re: [PATCH 06/20] drm/gem: inline drm_gem_object_handle_reference

2013-07-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
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

Re: [PATCH 06/20] drm/gem: inline drm_gem_object_handle_reference

2013-07-23 Thread Dave Airlie
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

Re: [PATCH 06/20] drm/gem: inline drm_gem_object_handle_reference

2013-07-23 Thread Rob Clark
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

Re: [PATCH 06/20] drm/gem: inline drm_gem_object_handle_reference

2013-07-23 Thread Daniel Vetter
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

Re: [PATCH 06/20] drm/gem: inline drm_gem_object_handle_reference

2013-07-23 Thread Rob Clark
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