Re: [PATCH] drm: vmwgfx: constify vmw_fence_ops

[Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>]

On 08/30/2017 10:30 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 08:21:46AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> On 08/30/2017 07:47 AM, Arvind Yadav wrote:
>>> vmw_fence_ops are not supposed to change at runtime. Functions
>>> "dma_fence_init" working with const vmw_fence_ops provided
>>> by <linux/dma-fence.h>. So mark the non-const structs as const.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c
>>> index b8bc5bc..abc5f03 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_fence.c
>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static long vmw_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *f, bool intr, signed long timeout)
>>>    	return ret;
>>>    }
>>> -static struct dma_fence_ops vmw_fence_ops = {
>>> +static const struct dma_fence_ops vmw_fence_ops = {
>>>    	.get_driver_name = vmw_fence_get_driver_name,
>>>    	.get_timeline_name = vmw_fence_get_timeline_name,
>>>    	.enable_signaling = vmw_fence_enable_signaling,
>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
> Does this mean you'll merge it, or does this mean you'll expect someone
> else to merge this?
>
> I'm always confused when maintainers reply with an r-b/ack for a patch
> only touching their driver, and no further information at all.
> -Daniel

For patches only touching our driver, I'd say we're always responsible 
for sorting out how it's going to be merged.

Since Sinclair is maintaining the vmwgfx trees I thought I'd give him a 
chance to comment on how he wanted it merged.

/Thomas