On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:15:14PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > diff --git a/libdrm.h b/libdrm.h >> > new file mode 100644 >> > index 000000000000..23926e6f6741 >> > --- /dev/null >> > +++ b/libdrm.h >> > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ >> > +/* >> > + * Copyright © 2014 NVIDIA Corporation >> > + * >> > + * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a >> > + * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), >> > + * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >> > + * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, >> > + * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >> > + * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >> > + * >> > + * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in >> > + * all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >> > + * >> > + * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >> > + * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >> > + * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL >> > + * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR >> > + * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, >> > + * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR >> > + * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >> > + */ >> > + >> > +#ifndef LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H >> > +#define LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H >> >> LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H sounds a bit clunky to me. Why LIBDRM twice? The other >> headers don't seem to prefix LIBDRM_ to their header-guards. In fact, >> many of them don't even have header-guards. > > This was with the intention of marking it as an internal header file. So > the LIBDRM_ prefix could be used consistently for all files that are not > installed. xf86atomic.h uses that prefix as well. If you look at the history of xf86atomic.h, it seems this strange header-guard is the result of a slightly careless replace. It used to be called intel_atomics.h, and have INTEL_ATOMICS_H as the header-guard. So I wouldn't lake that set too much of a precedence. >> Also, does these macro really warrant making a top-level, generically >> named header? > > There isn't really another header file where this would fit. Others are > either installed (and therefore shouldn't be exposing these macros) or > have a very specific purpose (xf86atomic.h). I guess this is a matter of taste, and it would be great with some input from the other libdrm-people on this. I don't care too much either way... _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
