On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:54:01PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > I moved the main bits to be the first diffs, shouldn't affect anything > > when applying the patch, but I wanted to ask: > > I don't like the hard-coded `32` the appears in both kmalloc() and > > snprintf(), what do you think? If you don't like it either, what would > > you suggest? Should I #define it? > > > > Second question is about the patch mail itself: should I send this kind > > of patch separated by module, with a note requesting them to be squashed > > when applying? It has to land as a single patch, but for review it might > > be easier if people only see the bits they each care about, as well as > > to collect ack's/r-b's. > > > > Cheers, > > Eric > > > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/dce_v10_0.c | 6 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/dce_v11_0.c | 6 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/dce_v8_0.c | 6 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 5 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc.c | 21 ++++++++----- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c | 17 ++++++----- > > drivers/gpu/drm/hisilicon/kirin/kirin_drm_ade.c | 6 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 11 ++++++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic_plane.c | 6 ++-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++--------- > > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/atombios_crtc.c | 12 +++++--- > > include/drm/drm_fourcc.h | 2 +- > > 12 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c > > index 0645c85..38216a1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_fourcc.c > > @@ -39,16 +39,14 @@ static char printable_char(int c) > > * drm_get_format_name - return a string for drm fourcc format > > * @format: format to compute name of > > * > > - * Note that the buffer used by this function is globally shared and owned by > > - * the function itself. > > - * > > - * FIXME: This isn't really multithreading safe. > > + * Note that the buffer returned by this function is owned by the caller > > + * and will need to be freed. > > */ > > const char *drm_get_format_name(uint32_t format) > > I find it surprising that a function that allocates a buffer returns a > const pointer. Some userspace libraries have conventions about the > ownership based on constness. > > (I also find it suprising that kfree() takes a const pointer; arguably > that call changes the memory.) > > Is there precedent for this? > > BR, > Jani. It's not a const pointer, it's a normal pointer to a const char, i.e. you can do as you want with the pointer but you shouldn't change the chars it points to. Cheers, Eric _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
