d/freebsd-skq
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

drm/ttm: Fix style errors

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
dumbbell 2013-08-25 15:01:35 +00:00
parent 4e3539e87c
commit 22072c43ad
1 changed files with 14 additions and 14 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
sys/dev/drm2/ttm/ttm_bo.c
View File

@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ int ttm_bo_reserve_nolru(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
{
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_buffer_object *bo,
}
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;