Hello Tobias, On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:24:11 +0100 Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Hyungwon, > > > Hyungwon Hwang wrote: > > Hello Tobias, > > > > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:47:02 +0100 > > Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hello Hyungwon, > >> > >> > >> Hyungwon Hwang wrote: > >>> Hello Tobias, > >>> > >>> I was in vacation last week, so I could run your code today. I > >>> found that what g2d_move() does is actually copying not moving, > >>> because the operation does not clear the previous area. > >> I choose g2d_move() because we also have memcpy() and memmove() in > >> libc. Like in libc 'moving' memory doesn't actually move it, like > >> you would move a real object, since it's undefined what 'empty' > >> memory should be. > >> > >> The same applies here. It's not defined what 'empty' areas of the > >> buffer should be. > >> > >> > >>> Would it be possible to > >>> generalize g2d_copy() works better, so it could works well in case > >>> of the src buffer and dst buffer being same. > >> I think this would break g2d_copy() backward compatibility. > >> > >> I also want the user to explicitly request this. The user should > >> make sure what requirements he has for the buffers in question. > >> Are the buffers disjoint or not? > >> > >> > >>> If it is possible, I think it > >>> would be better way to do that. If it is not, at least chaning the > >>> function name is needed. I tested it on my Odroid U3 board. > >> I don't have a strong opinion on the naming. Any recommendations? > >> > >> I still think the naming is fine though, since it mirrors libc's > >> naming. And the user is supposed to read the documentation anyway. > > > >> > >> > >> > >> With best wishes, > >> Tobias > > > > In that manner following glibc, I agree that the naming is > > reasonable. > well, that was just my way of thinking. But I guess most people have > experience using the libc, so the naming should look at least > 'familiar'. > > > > > I commented like that previously, because at the first time when I > > run the test, I think that the result seems like a bug. The test > > program said that it was a move test, but the operation seemed > > copying. > Ok, so just that I understand this correctly. Your issue is with the > commit the description of the test or with the commit description of > the patch that introduces g2d_move()? > > Because I don't see what you point out in the test commit description: > > " > tests/exynos: add test for g2d_move > > To check if g2d_move() works properly we create a small checkerboard > pattern in the center of the screen and then shift this pattern > around with g2d_move(). The pattern should be properly preserved > by the operation. > " > > I intentionally avoid to write "...move this pattern around...", so > instead I choose "shift". > > I'm not a native speaker, so I'm clueless how to formulate this in a > more clear way. I'm also not a native speaker, so maybe I could not figure out the subtle difference between move and shift. I just thought that 'shift' was just the synonym of 'move'. > > > > It > > would be just OK if it is well documented or printed when runs the > > test that the test does not do anything about the previous area > > intentionally. > I could add solid fills of the 'empty' areas after each move() > operation. Would that be more in line what you think the test should > do? No. Because g2d_move() is to g2d_copy() what memmove() is to memcpy(), the current implementation seems enough. What about change 'move' to 'copy' in the function description? * g2d_move - copy content inside single buffer. * Similar to 'memmove' this copies a rectangular region * of the provided buffer to another location (the source * and destination region potentially overlapping) Best regards, Hyungwon Hwang > > > With best wishes, > Tobias > > > > > > > > > > BRs, > > Hyungwon Hwang > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to > majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |