On 10/24/17 9:01 AM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>>> Do you prefer to delegate the proposed software refactoring
>>> only to a corresponding optimiser?
>>
>> yes.
>
> Will any applications around the semantic patch language
> (Coccinelle software) fit also in the preferred tool category?
What do you
, 2017 3:26 PM
To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org;
intel-gvt-...@lists.freedesktop.org; David Airlie ; Jani
Nikula ; Joonas Lahtinen
; Vivi, Rodrigo ;
Zhenyu Wang ; Wang, Zhi A
Cc: LKML ; kernel-janit...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915/gvt: Use common
>> Do you prefer to delegate the proposed software refactoring
>> only to a corresponding optimiser?
>
> yes.
Will any applications around the semantic patch language
(Coccinelle software) fit also in the preferred tool category?
Regards,
Markus
___
dr
On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 16:51 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Do you prefer to delegate the proposed software refactoring
> only to a corresponding optimiser?
yes.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/m
>> … It's just that two out of three error
>> messages happened to be the same and Markus wants to save a bit of
>> memory by using the same string. The memory savings is not so big that
>> it's worth making the code less readable.
>
> I agree with Dan.
>
> It doesn't save any real memory eithe
On Tue, 2017-10-24 at 17:26 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> The point of unwind code is to undo what was done earlier. If a
> function allocates a list of things, using standard unwind style makes
> it simpler, safer and more readable.
>
> This isn't the case here. Instead of making the code more
> This isn't the case here.
I find your view interesting for further clarification somehow.
> Instead of making the code more readable, we're making it more convoluted.
Can the shown software refactoring usually help here?
> It's just that two out of three error messages happened to be the sa
The point of unwind code is to undo what was done earlier. If a
function allocates a list of things, using standard unwind style makes
it simpler, safer and more readable.
This isn't the case here. Instead of making the code more readable,
we're making it more convoluted. It's just that two out
Markus,
I normally keep quiet on threads like this. I half agree with you. Yes, perhaps
a reportError function would be a good idea, but it seems that what you are
suggesting is trading an inline subroutine call for a spaghetti-code vondition.
The goto is used only if you do not have any code
>> Add a jump target so that a call of the function "gvt_vgpu_err" is stored
>> only once at the end of this function implementation.
>> Replace two calls by goto statements.
>>
>> This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
>
> I don't think this is an issue or an improvement.
Do y
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:20:06 +0200
>
> Add a jump target so that a call of the function "gvt_vgpu_err" is stored
> only once at the end of this function implementation.
> Replace two calls by goto statements.
>
> This issue
From: Markus Elfring
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:20:06 +0200
Add a jump target so that a call of the function "gvt_vgpu_err" is stored
only once at the end of this function implementation.
Replace two calls by goto statements.
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-b
12 matches
Mail list logo
