From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm/vmwgfx: Remove duplicates in vmwgfx_bo.h Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 19:30:20 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260521224137.628035-1-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com> References: <20260521224137.628035-1-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com> <20260521224137.628035-1-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Correctness of the duplicate claim:** The removed functions in `vmwgfx_bo.h`: ```c static inline struct vmw_bo *vmw_user_bo_ref(struct vmw_bo *vbo) { drm_gem_object_get(&vbo->tbo.base); return vbo; } static inline void vmw_user_bo_unref(struct vmw_bo **buf) { struct vmw_bo *tmp_buf =3D *buf; *buf =3D NULL; if (tmp_buf) drm_gem_object_put(&tmp_buf->tbo.base); } ``` are indeed identical to the retained functions in the same file: ```c static inline struct vmw_bo *vmw_bo_reference(struct vmw_bo *buf) { drm_gem_object_get(&buf->tbo.base); return buf; } static inline void vmw_bo_unreference(struct vmw_bo **buf) { struct vmw_bo *tmp_buf =3D *buf; *buf =3D NULL; if (tmp_buf) drm_gem_object_put(&tmp_buf->tbo.base); } ``` The only difference is the parameter name (`vbo` vs `buf`), which has no se= mantic impact. **Caller updates:** All 17 call sites across 9 files are mechanically updat= ed =E2=80=94 each `vmw_user_bo_ref` =E2=86=92 `vmw_bo_reference`, each `vmw= _user_bo_unref` =E2=86=92 `vmw_bo_unreference`. The argument types and poin= ter-to-pointer semantics are preserved correctly in every instance. **Forward declaration cleanup (`vmwgfx_drv.h`):** The patch also removes on= e of two identical `struct vmw_bo;` forward declarations. The remaining one= at line 99 is sufficient. **No issues found.** This is a clean, correct deduplication. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer