On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 07:11:17PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 3/28/19 6:50 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > [...] > >>> > >>> The hmm_put() is just releasing the reference on the hmm struct. > >>> > >>> Here i feel i am getting contradicting requirement from different people. > >>> I don't think there is a way to please everyone here. > >>> > >> > >> That's not a true conflict: you're comparing your actual implementation > >> to Ira's request, rather than comparing my request to Ira's request. > >> > >> I think there's a way forward. Ira and I are actually both asking for the > >> same thing: > >> > >> a) clear, concise get/put routines > >> > >> b) avoiding odd side effects in functions that have one name, but do > >> additional surprising things. > > > > Please show me code because i do not see any other way to do it then > > how i did. > > > > Sure, I'll take a run at it. I've driven you crazy enough with the naming > today, it's time to back it up with actual code. :) Note that every single line in mm_get_hmm() do matter. > I hope this is not one of those "we must also change Nouveau in N+M steps" > situations, though. I'm starting to despair about reviewing code that > basically can't be changed... It can be change but i rather not do too many in one go, each change is like a tango with one partner and having tango with multiple partner at once is painful much more likely to step on each other foot. Cheers, Jérôme
