From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/11] drm/xe: Simplify module initialization code
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 15:35:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aIfRHZEKzMeyCBRf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250727172009.587-2-michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 07:19:58PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> There is no need to have extra checks and WARN() in the helpers
> as instead of an index of the entry with function pointers, we
> can pass pointer to the entry which we prepare directly in the
> main loop, that is guaranteed to be valid.
>
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/4 up/down: 0/-180 (-180)
> Function old new delta
> xe_exit 109 79 -30
> cleanup_module 109 79 -30
> xe_init 248 188 -60
> init_module 248 188 -60
> Total: Before=2774145, After=2773965, chg -0.01%
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c
> index d9391bd08194..593bc9e5851a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_module.c
> @@ -135,24 +135,17 @@ static const struct init_funcs init_funcs[] = {
> },
> };
>
> -static int __init xe_call_init_func(unsigned int i)
> +static int __init xe_call_init_func(const struct init_funcs *func)
> {
> - if (WARN_ON(i >= ARRAY_SIZE(init_funcs)))
> - return 0;
> - if (!init_funcs[i].init)
> - return 0;
> -
> - return init_funcs[i].init();
> + if (func->init)
> + return func->init();
> + return 0;
> }
>
> -static void xe_call_exit_func(unsigned int i)
> +static void xe_call_exit_func(const struct init_funcs *func)
> {
> - if (WARN_ON(i >= ARRAY_SIZE(init_funcs)))
> - return;
> - if (!init_funcs[i].exit)
> - return;
> -
> - init_funcs[i].exit();
> + if (func->exit)
> + func->exit();
> }
>
> static int __init xe_init(void)
> @@ -160,10 +153,10 @@ static int __init xe_init(void)
> int err, i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(init_funcs); i++) {
> - err = xe_call_init_func(i);
> + err = xe_call_init_func(&init_funcs[i]);
perhaps we can go further and avoid this extra function calling
directly here:
err = init_funcs[i].init();
> if (err) {
> while (i--)
> - xe_call_exit_func(i);
> + xe_call_exit_func(&init_funcs[i]);
and
init_funcs[i].exit();
here ?
> return err;
> }
> }
> @@ -176,7 +169,7 @@ static void __exit xe_exit(void)
> int i;
>
> for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(init_funcs) - 1; i >= 0; i--)
> - xe_call_exit_func(i);
> + xe_call_exit_func(&init_funcs[i]);
and here
init_funcs[i].exit();
But either way is fine I guess... up to you:
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> }
>
> module_init(xe_init);
> --
> 2.47.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-28 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-27 17:19 [PATCH v4 00/11] Updates for drm/xe/configfs Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-27 17:19 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] drm/xe: Simplify module initialization code Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:35 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2025-07-28 19:47 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 20:00 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-28 23:52 ` John Harrison
2025-07-29 8:39 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-27 17:19 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] drm/xe: Print module init abort code Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:39 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-28 19:51 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:59 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] drm/xe/configfs: Destroy xe_configfs.su_mutex on exit/error Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:42 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] drm/xe/configfs: Use mutex from xe_configfs subsystem Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:50 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-28 19:55 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] drm/xe/configfs: Rename struct xe_config_device Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:54 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] drm/xe/configfs: Rename configfs_find_group() helper Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-28 19:57 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] drm/xe/configfs: Reintroduce struct xe_config_device Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-29 0:06 ` John Harrison
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] drm/xe/configfs: Keep default device config settings together Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-29 0:07 ` John Harrison
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] drm/xe/configfs: Check if device was preconfigured Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-29 0:11 ` John Harrison
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] drm/xe/configfs: Only allow configurations for supported devices Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] drm/xe/configfs: Allow adding configurations for future VFs Michal Wajdeczko
2025-07-27 17:28 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for Updates for drm/xe/configfs (rev5) Patchwork
2025-07-27 18:07 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-07-27 19:09 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aIfRHZEKzMeyCBRf@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.