Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-90486-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:11:17 +0200
From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Nikita Kiryushin <kiryushin@ancud.ru>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Remove unneeded double drm_rect_visible call
 in check_overlay_dst
Message-ID: <ZeWsVXhj1AUD4q3G@intel.com>
References: <>
 <79c92cfa-cf5a-4a23-8a93-11c1af7432fc@ancud.ru>
 <ZeB45WKv4lP8QQpv@intel.com>
 <ecfb0f31-a454-4a51-9fb8-9cd0aca3195c@ancud.ru>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ecfb0f31-a454-4a51-9fb8-9cd0aca3195c@ancud.ru>

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 09:56:41PM +0300, Nikita Kiryushin wrote:
> On 2/29/24 15:30, Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > I prefer the current way where we have no side effects in
> > the if statement.
> >
> 
> This seem like a valid concern from readability and maintainability 
> standpoint. My patch was aimed mostly at performance and maintainability 
> using tools: some more pedantic analyzers are sensitive to non-checked 
> return values (as of now, drm_rect_intersect is ignored).
> 
> Would it be a better idea to make an update to the patch with second 
> drm_rect_visible call changed to an appropriately named state flag set 
> with drm_rect_intersect result?

I was thinking of maybe removing that drm_rect_visible() from
drm_rect_intersect() entirely, but looks like it's used fairly
extensively, so would require a bunch of work.

But now that I though about this I recalled that there was an earlier
patch trying to do exactly what you suggested in this patch. And looks
like there was a second version posted which I completely missed:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/115605/

While that does still have drm_rect_intersect() with its side effects
inside the if() I don't find it quite as objectionable since it's the
only thing in there. So it's a bit more obvious what is happening.
I've gone and merged that one.

Thanks for the patch regardless. At least I reminded me to look at the
earlier attempt ;)

> 
> BTW, the original patch somehow got mangled while it made its way to the 
> patchwork: source list line in patch got broken, which permits the patch 
> from being applied (the original version did not have that line break). 
> Any ideas how to prevent this happening with the second version of patch 
> (in case the idea is viable)?

-- 
Ville Syrj?l?
Intel