On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:53:52AM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 21/12/15 08:11, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >On pe, 2015-12-18 at 16:18 +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
> >>On 18/12/15 12:27, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >>>Take advantage of WARN return value to simplify the flow.
> >>>
> >>>Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Reported-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +++++----------
> >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>index 1d28d90..5a5a3e0 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >>>@@ -87,23 +87,18 @@
> >>> */
> >>> #define I915_STATE_WARN(condition, format...) ({
> >>>\
> >>> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);
> >>> \
> >>>- if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) {
> >>> \
> >>>- if (i915.verbose_state_checks)
> >>> \
> >>>- WARN(1, format);
> >>>\
> >>>- else
> >>> \
> >>>+ if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on))
> >>> \
> >>>+ if (!WARN(i915.verbose_state_checks, format))
> >>> \
> >>> DRM_ERROR(format);
> >>> \
> >>>- }
> >>>\
> >>> unlikely(__ret_warn_on);
> >>>\
> >>> })
> >>>
> >>> #define I915_STATE_WARN_ON(condition) ({
> >>>\
> >>> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);
> >>> \
> >>>- if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) {
> >>> \
> >>>- if (i915.verbose_state_checks)
> >>> \
> >>>- WARN(1, "WARN_ON(" #condition ")\n");
> >>> \
> >>>- else
> >>> \
> >>>+ if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on))
> >>> \
> >>>+ if (!WARN(i915.verbose_state_checks,
> >>> \
> >>>+ "WARN_ON(" #condition ")\n"))
> >>> \
> >>> DRM_ERROR("WARN_ON(" #condition ")\n");
> >>> \
> >>
> >>These last two lines still have the text of the condition as part of
> >>a
> >>format string :(
> >>
> >>For compile-testing, you might want to change:
> >>
> >> static void lpt_bend_clkout_dp(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv
> >> ...
> >> if (WARN_ON(steps % 5 != 0))
> >> return;
> >>
> >>to use I915_STATE_WARN_ON() instead of WARN_ON, then you should get a
> >>compile-time warning if the '%' ends up in the format string.
> >>
> >
> >This is just a patch to convert the old macros to different order
> >before changing them. The way of constructing the strings is intact.
> >
> >Regards, Joonas
>
> Yes, I agree, you didn't break them -- they were already wrong!
Yeah I think it makes sense to fix that. I'll wait for v4.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
