On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Jesse Barnes wrote: > >> > - info->skip_vt_switch = true; > >> > + fb_enable_skip_vt_switch(info); > >> > > >> > So we'd then have to just add this static inline change for each new driver... > >> > There may be a way to get SmPL to do this for us... > > > > @@ > > type of info *info; > > @@ > > > > - info->skip_vt_switch = true; > > + fb_enable_skip_vt_switch(info); > > > > for whatever the type of info is. > > Thanks Julia! I'll be sure to try to add this to compat-drivers if the > upstream fb patch is not accepted. If it is accepted we would not need > this at all! > > > Then I guess there would be a similar rule for the false case? > > Nope, see that's the proactive strategy taken by the static inline and > hence the patch. compat would have a static inline for both cases, and > for the false case it'd be a no-op. If accepted upstream though then > we would not need any changes for this collateral evolution. However > *spotting* these collateral evolutions and giving you SmPL for them as > a proactive strategy might be good given that if these type of patches > are indeed welcomed upstream we'd then be able to address these as > secondary steps. If they are not accepted then indeed we'd use them to > backport that collateral evolution through both compat (adds the > static inlines) and compat-drivers (the SmPL). Probably I am missing something, since I haven't looked at the code in detail, bu wouldn't it be nicer to have a function call for the false case, if there is a function call for the true case? In looking at the code, one could wonder why things are not done in a parallel way. julia _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
