On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 01:14:50PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Adapt the macro so that we can pass either the struct drm_device or the
> > struct drm_i915_private pointers and get the answer we want. Over time,
> > my plan is to convert all users over to using drm_i915_private and so
> > trimming down the pointer dance. Having spent a few hours chasing that
> > goal and achieved over 8k of object code saving, it appears to be a
> > worthwhile target. This interim macro allows us to slowly convert over.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 3 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 3 ++-
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > index 39988940d468..49149406fcd8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > @@ -1585,6 +1585,9 @@ int i915_driver_load(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned long flags)
> > if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET) && !dev->agp)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > + /* For the ugly agnostic INTEL_INFO macro */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*dev_priv) == sizeof(*dev));
> > +
> > dev_priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev_priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (dev_priv == NULL)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > index 0aef763ffa75..e66465430bdc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -2063,7 +2063,8 @@ struct drm_i915_cmd_table {
> > int count;
> > };
> >
> > -#define INTEL_INFO(p) (&to_i915(p)->info)
> > +#define __I915__(p) ((sizeof(*(p)) == sizeof(struct drm_i915_private)) ? (struct drm_i915_private *)(p) : to_i915((struct drm_device *)p))
>
> The explicit casts make me uncomfortable. Indeed, aren't they completely
> unnecessary? If the sizeof matches, p is expected to be struct
> drm_i915_private *, and if not, it's expected to be struct drm_device *,
> right?
Yes, killing the typesafety is bad. Sadly it is to quiesce the compiler
as the type-mismatch warnings are generated before it does the dead code
elimination removing the constant ?: expression. Too bad we couldn't
simply write typeof(*p) == typeof(T).
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
