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: Sat, 16 May 2026 10:17:50 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260514224819.3631763-6-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com> References: <20260514224819.3631763-1-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com> <20260514224819.3631763-6-maaz.mombasawala@broadcom.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Straightforward and correct cleanup.** The removed functions: ```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 = *buf; - - *buf = NULL; - if (tmp_buf) - drm_gem_object_put(&tmp_buf->tbo.base); -} ``` These are indeed identical to `vmw_bo_reference` and `vmw_bo_unreference`. All callers are mechanically updated. The duplicate `struct vmw_bo;` forward declaration removal in `vmwgfx_drv.h` is a nice bonus cleanup. One concern: this patch touches files also touched by patch 4 (`vmwgfx_surface.c`). The series should apply cleanly in order, but it would be worth confirming that the `vmwgfx_surface.c` changes in patch 5 are based on the state after patch 4 (they appear to be, since line numbers differ). **Summary:** The series fixes real bugs. The main concerns are the coding style in patch 1 (declarations after statements, double space), the safety of `ttm_bo_reserve` on a zero-refcount BO in patch 3, and ensuring the TTM reference lifetime change in patch 4 doesn't introduce a new leak path. Patch 2 and 5 look good. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer