linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/format-helper: Add drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 18:25:17 +0200
From:   Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] drm/format-helper: Add
 drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8_line()

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 02:05:56PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> wrote:
>> > Am 11.02.22 um 12:12 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:40:13AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> >>> On 2/11/22 11:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:19:22AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> >>>>> +static void drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8_line(u8 *dst, const u32 *src, unsigned int pixels)
>> >>>>> +{
>> >>>>> +	unsigned int x;
>> >>>>> +
>> >>>>> +	for (x = 0; x < pixels; x++) {
>> >>>>> +		u8 r = (*src & 0x00ff0000) >> 16;
>> >>>>> +		u8 g = (*src & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
>> >>>>> +		u8 b =  *src & 0x000000ff;
>> >>>>> +
>> >>>>> +		/* ITU BT.601: Y = 0.299 R + 0.587 G + 0.114 B */
>> >>>>> +		*dst++ = (3 * r + 6 * g + b) / 10;
>> >>>>> +		src++;
>> >>>>> +	}
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Can be done as
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 	while (pixels--) {
>> >>>> 		...
>> >>>> 	}
>> >>>>
>> >>>> or
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 	do {
>> >>>> 		...
>> >>>> 	} while (--pixels);
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't see why a while loop would be an improvement here TBH.
>> >> 
>> >> Less letters to parse when reading the code.
>> >
>> > It's a simple refactoring of code that has worked well so far. Let's 
>> > leave it as-is for now.
>> 
>> IMO *always* prefer a for loop over while or do-while.
>> 
>> The for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is such a strong paradigm in C. You
>> instantly know how many times you're going to loop, at a glance. Not so
>> with with the alternatives, which should be used sparingly.
>
> while () {}  _is_ a paradigm, for-loop is syntax sugar on top of it.

And while() is just syntax sugar for goto. :p

The for loop written as for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is hands down the most
obvious counting loop pattern there is in C.

>> And yes, the do-while suggested above is buggy, and you actually need to
>> stop and think to see why.
>
> It depends if pixels can be 0 or not and if it's not, then does it contain last
> or number.
>
> The do {} while (--pixels); might be buggy iff pixels may be 0.

Yeah. And how long does it take to figure that out?


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center