On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:24:08PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > Hi Julia et al, > > > > In Linux drm/i915 driver (drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_pps.[ch]) > > we have a magic macro like this: > > > > #define with_intel_pps_lock(dp, wf) \ > > Did you try declaring: > > iterator name with_intel_pps_lock; > > up with the metavariables? Nope, didn't know about that one. Seems to work fine with that. Thanks. > > julia > > > > for ((wf) = intel_pps_lock(dp); (wf); (wf) = intel_pps_unlock((dp), (wf))) > > > > > > which we can then use like so: > > ... > > with_intel_pps_lock(intel_dp, wakeref) > > wait_panel_power_cycle(intel_dp); > > ... > > > > > > If I try to modify this code with eg. > > > > @@ > > @@ > > - wait_panel_power_cycle > > + _wait_panel_power_cycle > > > > spatch fails to parse the macro and won't do the changes here. > > > > > > While experimenting with this I discovered that > > I can make it work by: > > - moving the macro definition into intel_pps.c file from intel_pps.h > > - renaming the macro to contain the substring "for" (doesn't matter > > where in the macro name the "for" appears) > > > > What on earth is going on here? > > > > -- > > Ville Syrjälä > > Intel > > -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
