linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] drm/fourcc: Pass the format_info pointer to drm_format_plane

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190512173054.uj3thuvkgmllsy2n@flea>
Date:   Sun, 12 May 2019 19:30:54 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To:     Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Emil Velikov <emil.velikov@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] drm/fourcc: Pass the format_info pointer to
 drm_format_plane_cpp

Hi Ville,

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:00:31PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 01:08:49PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > So far, the drm_format_plane_cpp function was operating on the format's
> > fourcc and was doing a lookup to retrieve the drm_format_info structure and
> > return the cpp.
> >
> > However, this is inefficient since in most cases, we will have the
> > drm_format_info pointer already available so we shouldn't have to perform a
> > new lookup. Some drm_fourcc functions also already operate on the
> > drm_format_info pointer for that reason, so the API is quite inconsistent
> > there.
> >
> > Let's follow the latter pattern and remove the extra lookup while being a
> > bit more consistent. In order to be extra consistent, also rename that
> > function to drm_format_info_plane_cpp and to a static function in the
> > header to match the current policy.
>
> Is there any point keeping the function at all?
> It's just info->cpp[i] no?

You're right, we can remove it.

Do you want this to be done in that patch or a subsequent one?

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com