RE: [Intel-gfx][PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: Add i915 device based MISSING_CASE macro

Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:03:23 -0800 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> Sent: 27 February 2020 14:00
> To: Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj
> <[email protected]>; Chris Wilson <chris@chris-
> wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; David 
> Airlie
> <[email protected]>; Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>; Vivi,
> Rodrigo <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Intel-gfx][PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: Add i915 device based
> MISSING_CASE macro
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, "Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj"
>       <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: 25 February 2020 19:32
> >> To: David Airlie <[email protected]>; Joonas Lahtinen
> >> <[email protected]>; Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj
> >> <[email protected]>; Vivi, Rodrigo
> >> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]
> >> Cc: Laxminarayan Bharadiya, Pankaj
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx][PATCH 01/10] drm/i915: Add i915 device based
> >> MISSING_CASE macro
> >>
> >> Quoting Pankaj Bharadiya (2020-02-25 13:47:00)
> >> > Now that we have struct drm_device based drm_WARN, introduce struct
> >> > drm_i915_private based i915_MISSING_CASE macro which uses
> >> drm_WARN so
> >> > that device specific information will also get printed in backtrace.
> >> >
> >> > i915_MISSING_CASE macro should be preferred over MISSING_CASE,
> >> > wherever possible.
> >>
> >> Whatever for? MISSING_CASE() itself should be a complete picture for
> >> the forgotten code.
> >
> > Are you saying, no need to have a new device specific macro?
> >
> > We want convert all the calls of WARN* with device specific drm_WARN*
> > in i915, hence I introduced new i915_MISSING_CASE macro.
> >
> > Jani, Will you please share your opinion on this?
> 
> In general, many or most WARNs are device specific, and the device information
> is useful. However MISSING_CASE is about the *code*. That was the intent
> anyway. Perhaps there are cases where the device information might be useful,
> but for most cases probably not.

Thanks for clarification. Please ignore this patch series then.

Thanks,
Pankaj 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> 
> --
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel






















					Reply via email to