The inactive counter was over the active list, and vice versa.
Fortuitously this should not cause a problem in practice as they shared
the same array and clamped the number of entries they would write.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20180605160623.30163-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
int count_inactive, count_active;
count_inactive = 0;
- list_for_each_entry(vma, &vm->active_list, vm_link)
+ list_for_each_entry(vma, &vm->inactive_list, vm_link)
count_inactive++;
count_active = 0;
- list_for_each_entry(vma, &vm->inactive_list, vm_link)
+ list_for_each_entry(vma, &vm->active_list, vm_link)
count_active++;
bo = NULL;