On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 10:35:43AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote: > On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 10:29 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:33:01AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 18:16 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:08:20 +0100 > > > > Philipp Stanner <phasta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched, > > > > > - const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops, > > > > > - struct workqueue_struct *submit_wq, > > > > > - u32 num_rqs, u32 credit_limit, unsigned int hang_limit, > > > > > - long timeout, struct workqueue_struct *timeout_wq, > > > > > - atomic_t *score, const char *name, struct device *dev); > > > > > + const struct drm_sched_init_params *params); > > > > > > > > > > > > Another nit: indenting is messed up here. > > > > > > That was done on purpose. > > > > Let's not change this convention, it's used all over the kernel tree, > > including > > the GPU scheduler. People are used to read code that is formatted > > this way, plus > > the attempt of changing it will make code formatting inconsistent. > > Both the tree and this file are already inconsistent in regards to > this. That's not really a good argument to make it more inconsistent, is it? > > Anyways, what is your proposed solution to ridiculous nonsense like > this? > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c#L1296 I don't think this one needs a solution. The kernel picked a convention long ago, which also has downsides. If it gets too bad, we can deviate from conventions at any point of time; for the thing that otherwise would be bad, but we shouldn't do it in general.
