Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/gem: Look for waitboosting across the whole object prior to individual waits

[Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Karolina,

[...]

> > > > +	dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
> > > > +		if (dma_fence_is_i915(fence) &&
> > > > +		    !i915_request_started(to_request(fence)))
> > > > +			intel_rps_boost(to_request(fence));
> > > > +	}
> > 
> > you can remove the brackets here.
> > 
> > Andi
> 
> Would you like me to send v2 for it?

if the committer takes care of removing it, then no need,
otherwise, please yes, resend it. Even if it's a stupid nitpick,
if it gets applied it would be very difficult to get it fixed[*].

Didn't checkpatch.pl complain about it?

If you are going to resend it, you can add my:

Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>

also here.

Thanks,
Andi

[*] Because just minor coding style patches are generally
rejected, the only way for fixing style issues would be if:

 1. someone is working in that part of the code
 2. someone will sneak in the code fix in some unrelated patch 
    screwing up git blame
 3. someone will send a big series on this file and have some
    trivial coding style patches in it.

Amongst the three above, number '2' is the one I dislike the
most, but unfortunately that's also the most used.