From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C62FC54E68 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103E510F0BF; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="F8+ZtY8G"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.12]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9930E10EC78 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:09:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1710879000; x=1742415000; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=S3IqoNA3R0MFqtL+JBMCRL0AwGhLqlkxDrWVTF1SQSQ=; b=F8+ZtY8Gzjzk8XyLCwGQsLLlXCuf9rOFpwd/BpLD5XssB0TpE9DqVSOU 7TXs2XWRRI0OEBxOhoSBCmTxDbx6D+fOPv4J7C91wIG1QR261txC9Y2cu VzDI9IjMjWLFBF5UgnbH/l0MaG5UBK5RSmiz3oVXZaLC7jLyF5bBdnMft fLORUYgOruXrovZsma+sfvft/7N6qXvBytZ5CiiWRXx/WE1GJb/pFAbHN 596I/vZbqiUOutNZy2o5GkQHYonVkmuFjKimpfovUSVtAQ8hnF/vt99/L y5I+vyie1tssM9KwnZq+9vEUs9qzaJFK4/KJQ9H/Sg2CNIiNHJRQ8njaD Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11018"; a="9546842" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,137,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="9546842" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Mar 2024 13:09:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,137,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="18654427" Received: from orsosgc001.jf.intel.com (HELO unerlige-ril.intel.com) ([10.165.21.138]) by ORVIESA003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Mar 2024 13:09:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:09:58 -0700 Message-ID: <85msqu56g9.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" To: Niranjana Vishwanathapura Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, lucas.demarchi@intel.com, stuart.summers@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe: Use correct function pointer type In-Reply-To: <20240319174919.1847-1-niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com> References: <20240319174919.1847-1-niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.2 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Xe graphics driver List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-xe-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-xe" On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:49:19 -0700, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote: > > Use xe_exec_queue_user_extension_fn type for > exec_queue_user_extension_funcs.` > > Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c > index 2016c1af9633..dd10188e8f4d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c > @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ typedef int (*xe_exec_queue_user_extension_fn)(struct xe_device *xe, > struct xe_exec_queue *q, > u64 extension); > > -static const xe_exec_queue_set_property_fn exec_queue_user_extension_funcs[] = { > +static const xe_exec_queue_user_extension_fn exec_queue_user_extension_funcs[] = { > [DRM_XE_EXEC_QUEUE_EXTENSION_SET_PROPERTY] = exec_queue_user_ext_set_property, The change is correct, though the types xe_exec_queue_set_property_fn and xe_exec_queue_user_extension_fn are exactly the same (one has 'u64 value' and the other 'u64 extension'). So it may even be possible to eliminte one of them. That is why the compiler does not complain. Anyway: Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit > }; > > -- > 2.43.0 >