Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-80371-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0fff52305e584036a777f440b5f474da@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <c6924533f157497b836bff24073934a6@AcuMS.aculab.com> <CAHk-=wgNh5Gw7RTuaRe7mvf3WrSGDRKzdA55KKdTzKt3xPCnLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <59ae7d89368a4dd5a8b8b3f7bc2ae957@AcuMS.aculab.com>
In-Reply-To: <59ae7d89368a4dd5a8b8b3f7bc2ae957@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:11:09 +1000
Message-ID: <CAPM=9tyJQw2OPP=-WTozVuvzRiRrkk-BtZ+82MQCuUmjXBLKbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 08/11] minmax: Add min_const() and max_const()
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, 
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, 
	"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>, 
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>, Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 07:26, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > Yes, yes, that may end up requiring getting rid of some current users of
> >
> >   #define MIN(a,b) ((a)<(b) ? (a):(b))
> >
> > but dammit, we don't actually have _that_ many of them, and why should
> > we have random drivers doing that anyway?
>
> They look like they could be changed to min().
> It is even likely the header gets pulled in somewhere.
>
> I'm not sure about the ones in drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/*..*/*.c, but it
> wouldn't surprise me if that code doesn't use any standard kernel headers.
> Isn't that also the code that manages to pass 42 integer parameters
> to functions?

They are all separate in C files, I think we could get rid of them
pretty easily in favour of the standard ones,

Adding Harry to cc.

Dave.