Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> writes: > [ text/plain ] > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:18:23PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Final canvas for opinions for using a magic macro to reduce typing in >> > the common operation of getting our drm_i915_private from the object. >> > >> > 21 files changed, 333 insertions(+), 392 deletions(-) >> > >> > Not to mention the ease it makes for later patches to reduce the pointer >> > dance. >> >> I've expressed my reservations about this the last time. >> >> My compromise proposal is this: let's add the to_i915() >> "superconvenience macro", but let's not embed that into other >> macros. Instead, move away from convenience macros in them, explicitly >> requiring dev_priv. >> >> This would make just one macro special, and would keep the rest less >> surprising and "C-like". We already need dev_priv all over the place, so >> I don't think having a local variable or an explicit to_i915() is a big >> burden. > > Not much more to add, but I'm not strongly opinionated here really. But I > do think that a trick of this magnitude needs much more enthusiastic > support from a bunch of people before we can merge it. This reduces boilerplate code. And compiler watches our back? I fail to see the traps underneath, so I am leaning on the supporting side. Perhaps I need to reread the reservations post that Jani mentioned. -Mika > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
