> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 07:53:10AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:59:25AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just use qxl_num_crtc directly everywhere instead of using > > > > > qdev->monitors_config->max_allowed. Drops pointless indirection > > > > > and also is less confusing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me is MORE confusing, why comparing number of something with > > > > another number? Previously code was comparing number of monitors > > > > with number of monitors, not number of CRTs with number of > > > > monitors. > > > > > > Yes, spice/qxl and drm/kms use slightly different terminology. > > > > > > drm crtc == qxl monitor. > > > drm framebuffer == qxl surface. > > > > > > You need to know that anyway when looking at the qxl ksm code. We > > > have function names like qxl_crtc_update_monitors_config(). I fail > > > to see why that is a problem ... > > > > > > cheers, > > > Gerd > > > > I don't see any problem too but you are explaining to me > > why your rationale "and also is less confusing" does not > > stand. > > Well, it's less confusing because it takes away an indirection (not > because of the naming). > It does not confuse me. > qdev->monitors_config->max_allowed is effectively set by a module > parameter. So using the module parameter variable qxl_num_crtc > directly is better IMO. The kernel doesn't need to dereference pointers > each time it needs the value, and when reading the code you don't have > to trace where and why qdev->monitors_config->max_allowed is set. > That should go to the commit message! With that the patch is fine for me. Maybe there's no much point on reusing the same structure used inside QXLRom/QXLRam but this is OT for this patch. > cheers, > Gerd > > Frediano _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
