Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] igt_core: Fix docs for SLOW_QUICK

["Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 02:42:29 -0800, Petri Latvala wrote:
>
> The macro is for choosing between two values depending on whether IGT
> has been told it's running in simulation mode. The parameter names and
> their documentation was the opposite of what actually happened.
>
> The only user, gem_lut_handle, uses the macro correctly, having the
> "use this value in simulation mode" value as the second parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala@intel.com>
> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arek@hiler.eu>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> ---
>  lib/igt_core.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/igt_core.h b/lib/igt_core.h
> index 6b8dbf34..077e1bf3 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_core.h
> +++ b/lib/igt_core.h
> @@ -1170,7 +1170,7 @@ bool igt_run_in_simulation(void);
>   * Simple macro to select between two values (e.g. number of test rounds or test
>   * buffer size) depending upon whether i-g-t is run in simulation mode or not.
>   */
> -#define SLOW_QUICK(slow,quick) (igt_run_in_simulation() ? (quick) : (slow))
> +#define SLOW_QUICK(quick,slow) (igt_run_in_simulation() ? (slow) : (quick))

Previous code assumes slow/quick refer to number of iterations whereas this
patch assumes slow/quick refer to similation speed, correct? It seems to be
12 of one, dozen of the other to me. How about:

#define SLOW_QUICK(x, y) (igt_run_in_simulation() ? (y) : (x))

:-)

I prefer the previous interpretation where quick is assumed to be much
smaller than slow.