Author: dumbbell
Date: Sun Aug 25 15:01:35 2013
New Revision: 254871
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254871
Log:
  drm/ttm: Fix style errors

Modified:
  head/sys/dev/drm2/ttm/ttm_bo.c

Modified: head/sys/dev/drm2/ttm/ttm_bo.c
==============================================================================
--- head/sys/dev/drm2/ttm/ttm_bo.c      Sun Aug 25 15:00:48 2013        
(r254870)
+++ head/sys/dev/drm2/ttm/ttm_bo.c      Sun Aug 25 15:01:35 2013        
(r254871)
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ int ttm_bo_reserve_nolru(struct ttm_buff
 {
        int ret;
 
-       while (unlikely(atomic_xchg(&bo->reserved, 1) != 0)) {
+       while (unlikely(atomic_xchg(&bo->reserved, 1) != 0)) {
                /**
                 * Deadlock avoidance for multi-bo reserving.
                 */
@@ -230,28 +230,28 @@ int ttm_bo_reserve_nolru(struct ttm_buff
        }
 
        if (use_sequence) {
-               bool wake_up = false;
+               bool wake_up = false;
                /**
                 * Wake up waiters that may need to recheck for deadlock,
                 * if we decreased the sequence number.
                 */
                if (unlikely((bo->val_seq - sequence < (1 << 31))
                             || !bo->seq_valid))
-                       wake_up = true;
+                       wake_up = true;
 
-               /*
-                * In the worst case with memory ordering these values can be
-                * seen in the wrong order. However since we call wake_up_all
-                * in that case, this will hopefully not pose a problem,
-                * and the worst case would only cause someone to accidentally
-                * hit -EAGAIN in ttm_bo_reserve when they see old value of
-                * val_seq. However this would only happen if seq_valid was
-                * written before val_seq was, and just means some slightly
-                * increased cpu usage
-                */
+               /*
+                * In the worst case with memory ordering these values can be
+                * seen in the wrong order. However since we call wake_up_all
+                * in that case, this will hopefully not pose a problem,
+                * and the worst case would only cause someone to accidentally
+                * hit -EAGAIN in ttm_bo_reserve when they see old value of
+                * val_seq. However this would only happen if seq_valid was
+                * written before val_seq was, and just means some slightly
+                * increased cpu usage
+                */
                bo->val_seq = sequence;
                bo->seq_valid = true;
-               if (wake_up)
+               if (wake_up)
                        wakeup(bo);
        } else {
                bo->seq_valid = false;
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to