On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:15 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Christian, > > would you review the whole patch set? Daniel mentioned that he'd prefer > to leave the review to memory-mgmt developers. I think Noralf Tronnes or Gerd Hoffmann would also make good reviewers for this, fairly close to what they've been working on in the past. -Daniel > > Best regards > Thomas > > Am 30.04.19 um 11:35 schrieb Koenig, Christian: > > Am 30.04.19 um 11:23 schrieb Sam Ravnborg: > >> [CAUTION: External Email] > >> > >> Hi Thomas. > >> > >>>>> + > >>>>> +/** > >>>>> + * Returns the container of type &struct drm_gem_vram_object > >>>>> + * for field bo. > >>>>> + * @bo: the VRAM buffer object > >>>>> + * Returns: The containing GEM VRAM object > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> +static inline struct drm_gem_vram_object* drm_gem_vram_of_bo( > >>>>> + struct ttm_buffer_object *bo) > >>>>> +{ > >>>>> + return container_of(bo, struct drm_gem_vram_object, bo); > >>>>> +} > >>>> Indent funny. USe same indent as used in other parts of file for > >>>> function arguments. > >>> If I put the argument next to the function's name, it will exceed the > >>> 80-character limit. From the coding-style document, I could not see what > >>> to do in this case. One solution would move the return type to a > >>> separate line before the function name. I've not seen that anywhere in > >>> the source code, so moving the argument onto a separate line and > >>> indenting by one tab appears to be the next best solution. Please let me > >>> know if there's if there's a preferred style for cases like this one. > >> Readability has IMO higher priority than some limit of 80 chars. > >> And it hurts readability (at least my OCD) when style changes > >> as you do with indent here. So my personal preference is to fix > >> indent and accect longer lines. > > > > In this case the an often used convention (which is also kind of > > readable) is to add a newline after the return values, but before the > > function name. E.g. something like this: > > > > static inline struct drm_gem_vram_object* > > drm_gem_vram_of_bo(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo) > > > > Regards, > > Christian. > > > >> > >> But you ask for a preferred style - which I do not think we have in this > >> case. So it boils down to what you prefer. > >> > >> Enough bikeshedding, thanks for the quick response. > >> > >> Sam > > > > -- > Thomas Zimmermann > Graphics Driver Developer > SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany > GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization