On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 09:54:32AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 20:55:35 -0700, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > While I think the previous code is correct, it was hard to follow and > > hard to debug. Since we already have a ring abstraction, might as well > > use it to handle the semaphore updates and compares. > > > > I don't expect this code to make semaphores better or worse, but you > > never know... > > So "dumbing it down" means using macros instead of small functions and > putting magic values into the ring structure. I'm not sure if that's an > improvement to readability at all. > -Chris
The previous code for doing an update was non obvious to me. Obviously I will be biased in thinking my code is easier to follow, but for the existing code I had to map out exactly what it's doing every single time I went through it to convince myself it is correct. Using pointer arithmetic and then RING_SYNC_0 with math did not seem the correct way to do it. As for the magic values, they started out as non-magic, but got changed at some point during developing the patch. At the end I went back to magic to reduce the LOC. You'll notice the comments there make them slightly less magic. And although a lame argument... if a new ring comes along the previous code was not very well equiped to handle it. Ben _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
