linux-kernel - Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH 1/3] drm: Extend DEFINE_DRM_GEM

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: <CAF6AEGtiGA3TOtAvud66TOz_=ODHACS5jfsYPVQFvex-+1xBBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:24:37 -0800
From:   Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
To:     Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH 1/3] drm: Extend DEFINE_DRM_GEM_FOPS() for
 optional fops

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:36 PM Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 12:26:12PM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> >
> > Extend the helper macro so we don't have to throw it away if driver adds
> > support for optional fops, like show_fdinfo().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
> > ---
> >  include/drm/drm_gem.h | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem.h b/include/drm/drm_gem.h
> > index 35e7f44c2a75..987e78b18244 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_gem.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem.h
> > @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ struct drm_gem_object {
> >   * non-static version of this you're probably doing it wrong and will break the
> >   * THIS_MODULE reference by accident.
> >   */
> > -#define DEFINE_DRM_GEM_FOPS(name) \
> > +#define DEFINE_DRM_GEM_FOPS(name, ...) \
> >       static const struct file_operations name = {\
> >               .owner          = THIS_MODULE,\
> >               .open           = drm_open,\
> > @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ struct drm_gem_object {
> >               .read           = drm_read,\
> >               .llseek         = noop_llseek,\
> >               .mmap           = drm_gem_mmap,\
> > +             ##__VA_ARGS__\
> >       }
>
> Would it not be less convoluted to make the macro only provide
> the initializers? So you'd get something like:
>
> static const struct file_operations foo = {
>         DRM_GEM_FOPS,
>         .my_stuff = whatever,
> };
>

Hmm, I like my color of the bikeshed, but I guess it is a matter of opinion ;-)

BR,
-R