Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: make debug printer shown_bug_once variable to drm_i915_private

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>]

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-11-15 11:04:28)
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-11-15 10:18:40)
>> >> Get rid of the module specific static variable.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h   | 2 ++
>> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c | 9 ++++-----
>> >>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> >> index 1779f600fcfb..e11ee3268ae3 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>> >> @@ -1283,6 +1283,8 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
>> >>         /* Mutex to protect the above hdcp component related values. */
>> >>         struct mutex hdcp_comp_mutex;
>> >>  
>> >> +       bool shown_bug_once;
>> >> +
>> >>         I915_SELFTEST_DECLARE(struct i915_selftest_stash selftest;)
>> >>  
>> >>         /*
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
>> >> index c47261ae86ea..f434274b0b29 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
>> >> @@ -13,11 +13,10 @@
>> >>                     "providing the dmesg log by booting with drm.debug=0xf"
>> >>  
>> >>  void
>> >> -__i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
>> >> +__i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *i915, const char *level,
>> >>               const char *fmt, ...)
>> >>  {
>> >> -       static bool shown_bug_once;
>> >> -       struct device *kdev = dev_priv->drm.dev;
>> >> +       struct device *kdev = i915->drm.dev;
>> >>         bool is_error = level[1] <= KERN_ERR[1];
>> >>         bool is_debug = level[1] == KERN_DEBUG[1];
>> >>         struct va_format vaf;
>> >> @@ -39,7 +38,7 @@ __i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
>> >>  
>> >>         va_end(args);
>> >>  
>> >> -       if (is_error && !shown_bug_once) {
>> >> +       if (is_error && !i915->shown_bug_once) {
>> >>                 /*
>> >>                  * Ask the user to file a bug report for the error, except
>> >>                  * if they may have caused the bug by fiddling with unsafe
>> >> @@ -47,7 +46,7 @@ __i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
>> >>                  */
>> >>                 if (!test_taint(TAINT_USER))
>> >>                         dev_notice(kdev, "%s", FDO_BUG_MSG);
>> >
>> > I feel this plea to the users to file a bug report should be a one-time
>> > thing; a true global.
>> 
>> Fair enough.
>> 
>> I am wondering if we should have a convention of naming or commenting
>> legit globals, both to help automation detecting new accidental ones,
>> and to help people figure out not to send another conversion patch such
>> as this.
>
> global_i915_show_bug_once
> module_i915_show_bug_once

I'd be fine with either of the prefixes. Or i915_{global,module}_ for
that matter.

Joonas, Rodrigo, anyone?


BR,
Jani.


> this_is_not_a_drill_show_the_bug_only_once
>
> Reverse Hungarian namespace?
> -Chris

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx