On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 04:02:18PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 16.09.20 um 15:36 schrieb Alex Deucher: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:51 AM Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:38:34AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > > > > Am 15.09.20 um 21:35 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 03:16:32PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > > > > I question the value of these warnings. Why even have a boolean > > > > > > type > > > > > > if you are going to get warnings when you use them... > > > > > > That said, applied to avoid getting these patches again and again > > > > > > every time someone sees this. > > > > > if (this_is_sparta) > > > > > if (this_is_sparta == true) > > > > > if (this_is_sparta != false) > > > > > > > > > > I think the first one reads the best, and avoids having to > > > > > decide between truth and falsehood :) > > > > +1 > > > +1, especially because we also have the inversion when using negative > > > errno codes for failures and 0 as success, which results in > > > > > > if (errno == 0) /* success case */ > > > > > > but > > > if (bool == 0) /* failure case */ > > > > > > now creative people do sometimes > > > > > > if (!errno) /* success case */ > > > > > > which I think is horribly confusing. So imo for more easier telling apart > > > of these too I think consistently using the short form for booleans, and > > > consistently using the more explicit long form for errno checks is a Very > > > Good Pattern :-) > > I don't disagree with your logic, but we regularly get patches to > > convert errno checks to drop the direct comparison because that is the > > "preferred kernel style". Arguably, we should be explicit in all > > cases as that avoids all confusion. With that in mind, my original > > point stands. Why have a type when comparisons against valid settings > > for that type produce errors?
Oh, I didn't know that this happens for errno too. I withdraw my +1 and concur this is a bikeshed. I guess still applying to shut up the patch stream is the most reasonable thing :-/ -Daniel > Well it isn't an error, but raising a nice warning is most likely a good > idea. > > Christian. > > > > > Alex > > > > > Cheers, Daniel > > > > > > > Christian. > > > > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 9:21 AM Christian König > > > > > > <christian.koe...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com> for the > > > > > > > series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.09.20 um 15:07 schrieb Zheng Bin: > > > > > > > > Zheng Bin (8): > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > gfx_v9_0.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > gfx_v10_0.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > sdma_v5_0.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > sdma_v5_2.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > si.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > uvd_v6_0.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > amdgpu_atpx_handler.c > > > > > > > > drm/amd/amdgpu: fix comparison pointer to bool warning in > > > > > > > > sdma_v4_0.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_atpx_handler.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v10_0.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gfx_v9_0.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v4_0.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v5_0.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/sdma_v5_2.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/si.c | 2 +- > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/uvd_v6_0.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > > > 8 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 2.26.0.106.g9fadedd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > amd-gfx mailing list > > > > > > > amd-...@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=02%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Cdc7a8d7517d341e3a80c08d85a458ba8%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637358602051676053&sdata=MS0vcBcU7unXjEFlbd8kLbJkJ4sKcvIdLjc8yhX4UUI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > dri-devel mailing list > > > > > > dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdri-devel&data=02%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Cdc7a8d7517d341e3a80c08d85a458ba8%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637358602051686051&sdata=MgfR%2BwCVY9gWfhQ9i5kWcKiiYkV1C8O2dEKlZYSqscE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > dri-devel mailing list > > > > dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdri-devel&data=02%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Cdc7a8d7517d341e3a80c08d85a458ba8%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637358602051686051&sdata=MgfR%2BwCVY9gWfhQ9i5kWcKiiYkV1C8O2dEKlZYSqscE%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- > > > Daniel Vetter > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ffwll.ch%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7Cdc7a8d7517d341e3a80c08d85a458ba8%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637358602051686051&sdata=GvLs5OXw2Ny%2BieJxm8hjawNb0rGA966539iAwlWwPMY%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
