Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-12-11 12:36:10)
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-11-15 11:04:28)
> >> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-11-15 10:18:40)
> >> >> Get rid of the module specific static variable.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 ++
> >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c | 9 ++++-----
> >> >> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >> >> index 1779f600fcfb..e11ee3268ae3 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >> >> @@ -1283,6 +1283,8 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
> >> >> /* Mutex to protect the above hdcp component related values. */
> >> >> struct mutex hdcp_comp_mutex;
> >> >>
> >> >> + bool shown_bug_once;
> >> >> +
> >> >> I915_SELFTEST_DECLARE(struct i915_selftest_stash selftest;)
> >> >>
> >> >> /*
> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
> >> >> index c47261ae86ea..f434274b0b29 100644
> >> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
> >> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
> >> >> @@ -13,11 +13,10 @@
> >> >> "providing the dmesg log by booting with drm.debug=0xf"
> >> >>
> >> >> void
> >> >> -__i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
> >> >> +__i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *i915, const char *level,
> >> >> const char *fmt, ...)
> >> >> {
> >> >> - static bool shown_bug_once;
> >> >> - struct device *kdev = dev_priv->drm.dev;
> >> >> + struct device *kdev = i915->drm.dev;
> >> >> bool is_error = level[1] <= KERN_ERR[1];
> >> >> bool is_debug = level[1] == KERN_DEBUG[1];
> >> >> struct va_format vaf;
> >> >> @@ -39,7 +38,7 @@ __i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
> >> >>
> >> >> va_end(args);
> >> >>
> >> >> - if (is_error && !shown_bug_once) {
> >> >> + if (is_error && !i915->shown_bug_once) {
> >> >> /*
> >> >> * Ask the user to file a bug report for the error, except
> >> >> * if they may have caused the bug by fiddling with unsafe
> >> >> @@ -47,7 +46,7 @@ __i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
> >> >> */
> >> >> if (!test_taint(TAINT_USER))
> >> >> dev_notice(kdev, "%s", FDO_BUG_MSG);
> >> >
> >> > I feel this plea to the users to file a bug report should be a one-time
> >> > thing; a true global.
> >>
> >> Fair enough.
> >>
> >> I am wondering if we should have a convention of naming or commenting
> >> legit globals, both to help automation detecting new accidental ones,
> >> and to help people figure out not to send another conversion patch such
> >> as this.
> >
> > global_i915_show_bug_once
> > module_i915_show_bug_once
>
> I'd be fine with either of the prefixes. Or i915_{global,module}_ for
My vote goes for i915_global_* or global_i915_* (if we could get some
Kbuild infrastructure behind detecting global variables).
Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
