Re: [PATCH 1/2] args.h: add more helpers for manipulating macro arguments

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 11:49:16AM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02.05.2024 09:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 12:32:20AM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> >> Some advanced macros used to generate code may use helper macros
> >> to manipulate the argument lists. Define generic helpers that can
> >> replace existing local definitions and allow reuse by new code.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > In general I have no objections, but as I pointed out in the reply to cover
> > letter the statistics is a bit scary, i.e. we add too many lines without clear
> 
> with another spotted potential user (macro FIRST from bpf_probe.h) and
> without comments those statistics will look like:
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp.h         |  4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp_helpers.h | 26 ++++++++++----------------
>  include/linux/args.h                | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/trace/bpf_probe.h           |  7 ++-----
>  4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

Still not convincing, I would suggest to have xe_args.h for now. You may put
a comment that if new users will come, these macros may be moved to args.h.

> > benefit. Anyway, if people okay with that my tag is above (but also pay
> > attention that args.h is used in dozen of cases, including headers, right now
> > and this extension may affect a lot the build time of the kernel).
> 
> not an expert here, but I guess the cost of parsing another dozen of
> lines should negligible compared with opening hundreds of other include
> files during compilation ...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko