Re: [PATCH 06/13] drm/i915: Only grab timestamps when needed

Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-01-11T09:45:58Z

On 11/01/16 08:42, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:29:45AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> No need to call ktime_get_raw_ns twice per unlimited wait and can
>> also elimate a local variable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 12 +++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> index de98dc41fb9f..c4f69579eb7a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
>> @@ -1246,7 +1246,7 @@ int __i915_wait_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req,
>> int state = interruptible ? TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE : TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
>> DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
>> unsigned long timeout_expire;
>> - s64 before, now;
>> + s64 before = 0;
>
> Is gcc really this dense? Should be easy for it to spot that both branches
> depend upon the same condition. Please remove that assignment. With that
> changed:
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

It is this dense, at least gcc 4.8.4 on my machine. :(

Do you want to remove it regardless of the warning?

Rrgards,

Tvrtko