From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremiah Mahler Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Move two seq_printf's outside of locked mutex Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:13:41 -0800 Message-ID: <20141231151341.GA2162@newt.localdomain> References: <1419976466-2113-1-git-send-email-jonas@gannon.se> <20141230225211.GB31616@hudson.localdomain> <54A3B9F7.4080808@gannon.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54A3B9F7.4080808@gannon.se> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonas Lundqvist Cc: airlied@linux.ie, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Jonas, On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 09:55:19AM +0100, Jonas Lundqvist wrote: > Hi Jeremiah, > > On 12/30/2014 11:52 PM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote: > > You changed 'i' but you didn't explain in your log message why you did this. > > I can change the commit message to something more generic. "Move code > outside of locked mutex" or similar. > That still doesn't explain why you changed the 'i' variable. > > Does this change really improve anything? It may work the same with the > > locks moved around. But if you look at the function as a whole, the > > locks encapsulate the body of this function nicely. I like the original > > design better. > > The locking was already done this way, ie after the seq_printf, in the > functions drm_clients_info() and drm_gem_name_info() in thr same file. > So this change is really more of an alignment. > Your right, those two have have the lock after the seq_printf. But the drm_bufs_info() function has its lock before the seq_printf. So before your change about half are one way and half are the other. I am still not convinced that either of these ways is better or makes any difference whatsoever. > Best regards > Jonas > -- - Jeremiah Mahler