On 21/10/13 03:06PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > And yes C is dangerous, but also C is verbose. I think one lesson from igt > > is that too many magic block constructs are bad, it's just not how C > > works. Definitely not in the kernel, where "oops I got it wrong because it > > was too clever" is bad. > > > > > > Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming > > > > macro since it's all uppercase, so options are all a bit sucky. Which > > > > leads me to think we have a bit a https://xkcd.com/927/ situation going > > > > on. > > > > > > > > I think minimally we should have one way to do this. > > > > > > Well, there is no one way atm. All you can do is hand roll all the > > > boilerplate (and likely get it slightly wrong) if you don't want > > > lock_all. > > > > > > The current macros only help with lock_all, and IMO the hidden gotos > > > are even uglier than a hidden for loop. Fernando already hit a case > > > where he couldn't use the macros twice due to conflicting goto > > > labels. With this for loop thing I think it would have just worked(tm). > > > > I'm totally ok with repainting the shed, I just don't want some 80s > > multicolor flash show. > > You have a better idea in mind? Sorry, I completely forgot this discussion was going on and I just published V4 of my patch set here: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20211013204846.90026-1-greenfoo@xxxxxx/ Please, feel free to let me know (ideally, as a reply to the corresponding i915 patch from that set) if you rather me not to modify i915 files for now. Thanks.
