Hi Christian and Thomas,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c index 615d30c4262d..89530f2a027f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c @@ -462,14 +462,14 @@ static int ttm_bo_evict(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, ret = ttm_bo_handle_move_mem(bo, evict_mem, true, ctx, &hop); if (ret == -EMULTIHOP) { ret = ttm_bo_bounce_temp_buffer(bo, &evict_mem, ctx, &hop); - if (ret) { - if (ret != -ERESTARTSYS && ret != -EINTR) - pr_err("Buffer eviction failed\n"); - ttm_resource_free(bo, &evict_mem); - goto out; - } - /* try and move to final place now. */ - goto bounce; + if (!ret) + /* try and move to final place now. */ + goto bounce;
As we are at this, can't we replace this with a while()? Goto's used instead of a while loop are a fist in the eye...
I'm completely OK with that. this patch already did away with one of them. Let's hear Christian's opinion first, though.
I'm not a fan of that goto either, but could we somehow avoid the while(1) ? E.g. something like do { } while (!ret) after handling the multihop?
I think the construct that makes it most obvious what's happening, although it needs two tests for -EMULTIHOP is something like
do { .... if (ret != -EMULTIHOP) break; .... } while (ret ==-EMULTIHOP);
even better :)
Thank you! Andi