Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752984Ab3C1SKz (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:10:55 -0400 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:20256 "EHLO mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751718Ab3C1SKx (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:10:53 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,927,1363129200"; d="scan'208";a="9094077" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:10:50 +0100 (CET) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" cc: Julia Lawall , Jesse Barnes , FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, "backports@vger.kernel.org" , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com, Daniel Vetter , rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] compat/compat-drivers/linux-next: fb skip_vt_switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1364472270-9297-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20130328083943.01e61b4b@jbarnes-desktop> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2051 Lines: 49 On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Jesse Barnes wrote: > >> > - info->skip_vt_switch = true; > >> > + fb_enable_skip_vt_switch(info); > >> > > >> > So we'd then have to just add this static inline change for each new driver... > >> > There may be a way to get SmPL to do this for us... > > > > @@ > > type of info *info; > > @@ > > > > - info->skip_vt_switch = true; > > + fb_enable_skip_vt_switch(info); > > > > for whatever the type of info is. > > Thanks Julia! I'll be sure to try to add this to compat-drivers if the > upstream fb patch is not accepted. If it is accepted we would not need > this at all! > > > Then I guess there would be a similar rule for the false case? > > Nope, see that's the proactive strategy taken by the static inline and > hence the patch. compat would have a static inline for both cases, and > for the false case it'd be a no-op. If accepted upstream though then > we would not need any changes for this collateral evolution. However > *spotting* these collateral evolutions and giving you SmPL for them as > a proactive strategy might be good given that if these type of patches > are indeed welcomed upstream we'd then be able to address these as > secondary steps. If they are not accepted then indeed we'd use them to > backport that collateral evolution through both compat (adds the > static inlines) and compat-drivers (the SmPL). Probably I am missing something, since I haven't looked at the code in detail, bu wouldn't it be nicer to have a function call for the false case, if there is a function call for the true case? In looking at the code, one could wonder why things are not done in a parallel way. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/