Re: [PATCH v3 01/19] drm: Add |struct drm_gem_vram_object| and helpers

["Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>]

Am 03.05.19 um 14:01 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> [CAUTION: External Email]
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:15 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> 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.

I will try to take another look next week. Busy as usual here.

Christian.

> -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@lists.freedesktop.org
>> 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@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization