drm/i915: Make sure our labels start at column 0
diff mbox

Message ID 20150604163425.GR5176@intel.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Ville Syrjala June 4, 2015, 4:34 p.m. UTC
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.

Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:

> 
> Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++--
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c  | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index a96f181..2354927 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -6980,7 +6980,7 @@ static int i965gm_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev)
>  
>  	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, div_table[cdclk_sel]);
>  
> - fail:
> +fail:
>  	DRM_ERROR("Unable to determine CDCLK. HPLL VCO=%u kHz, CFGC=0x%04x\n", vco, tmp);
>  	return 200000;
>  }
> @@ -7021,7 +7021,7 @@ static int g33_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev)
>  
>  	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, div_table[cdclk_sel]);
>  
> - fail:
> +fail:
>  	DRM_ERROR("Unable to determine CDCLK. HPLL VCO=%u kHz, CFGC=0x%08x\n", vco, tmp);
>  	return 190476;
>  }
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> index 8193a35..f5965fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> @@ -1189,6 +1189,6 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane)
>  
>  	drm_plane_helper_add(&intel_plane->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs);
>  
> - out:
> +out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Comments

Jani Nikula June 5, 2015, 9:24 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
>
> Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:

What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?

Anyway, a quick git grep popularity contest within the kernel tree and
checkpatch (WARNING: labels should not be indented) tell me to go with
Damien.

BR,
Jani.

>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 7f6fd85..342509d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -942,6 +942,7 @@ out:
>  
>  	pps_unlock(intel_dp);
>  
> +	// foo
>  	return ret;
>  }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index 5901e00..2673347 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -942,6 +942,7 @@ intel_dp_aux_ch(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
>  
>  	pps_unlock(intel_dp);
>  
> +	// foo
>  	return ret;
>  }
>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++--
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c  | 2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index a96f181..2354927 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -6980,7 +6980,7 @@ static int i965gm_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev)
>>  
>>  	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, div_table[cdclk_sel]);
>>  
>> - fail:
>> +fail:
>>  	DRM_ERROR("Unable to determine CDCLK. HPLL VCO=%u kHz, CFGC=0x%04x\n", vco, tmp);
>>  	return 200000;
>>  }
>> @@ -7021,7 +7021,7 @@ static int g33_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev)
>>  
>>  	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, div_table[cdclk_sel]);
>>  
>> - fail:
>> +fail:
>>  	DRM_ERROR("Unable to determine CDCLK. HPLL VCO=%u kHz, CFGC=0x%08x\n", vco, tmp);
>>  	return 190476;
>>  }
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
>> index 8193a35..f5965fb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
>> @@ -1189,6 +1189,6 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane)
>>  
>>  	drm_plane_helper_add(&intel_plane->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs);
>>  
>> - out:
>> +out:
>>  	return ret;
>>  }
>> -- 
>> 2.1.0
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Ville Syrjala June 5, 2015, 9:27 a.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> >> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
> >
> > Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:
> 
> What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?

Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added,
the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches
cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label,
surroundng context, and/or line numbers.

I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied
patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar.

> 
> Anyway, a quick git grep popularity contest within the kernel tree and
> checkpatch (WARNING: labels should not be indented) tell me to go with
> Damien.
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index 7f6fd85..342509d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -942,6 +942,7 @@ out:
> >  
> >  	pps_unlock(intel_dp);
> >  
> > +	// foo
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > index 5901e00..2673347 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> > @@ -942,6 +942,7 @@ intel_dp_aux_ch(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
> >  
> >  	pps_unlock(intel_dp);
> >  
> > +	// foo
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 4 ++--
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c  | 2 +-
> >>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >> index a96f181..2354927 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> >> @@ -6980,7 +6980,7 @@ static int i965gm_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>  
> >>  	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, div_table[cdclk_sel]);
> >>  
> >> - fail:
> >> +fail:
> >>  	DRM_ERROR("Unable to determine CDCLK. HPLL VCO=%u kHz, CFGC=0x%04x\n", vco, tmp);
> >>  	return 200000;
> >>  }
> >> @@ -7021,7 +7021,7 @@ static int g33_get_display_clock_speed(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>  
> >>  	return DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(vco, div_table[cdclk_sel]);
> >>  
> >> - fail:
> >> +fail:
> >>  	DRM_ERROR("Unable to determine CDCLK. HPLL VCO=%u kHz, CFGC=0x%08x\n", vco, tmp);
> >>  	return 190476;
> >>  }
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> >> index 8193a35..f5965fb 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> >> @@ -1189,6 +1189,6 @@ intel_plane_init(struct drm_device *dev, enum pipe pipe, int plane)
> >>  
> >>  	drm_plane_helper_add(&intel_plane->base, &intel_plane_helper_funcs);
> >>  
> >> - out:
> >> +out:
> >>  	return ret;
> >>  }
> >> -- 
> >> 2.1.0
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Intel-gfx mailing list
> >> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> >
> > -- 
> > Ville Syrjälä
> > Intel OTC
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> 
> -- 
> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Lespiau, Damien June 5, 2015, 10:04 a.m. UTC | #3
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:27:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > >> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
> > >
> > > Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:
> > 
> > What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?
> 
> Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added,
> the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches
> cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label,
> surroundng context, and/or line numbers.
> 
> I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied
> patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar.

Oh wtf!

That sounds like something that should be fixed in the tool, a fun
little project for a dark winter night.
Dave Gordon June 5, 2015, 1:47 p.m. UTC | #4
On 05/06/15 11:04, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:27:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>>> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
>>>>
>>>> Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:
>>>
>>> What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?
>>
>> Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added,
>> the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches
>> cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label,
>> surroundng context, and/or line numbers.
>>
>> I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied
>> patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar.
> 
> Oh wtf!
> 
> That sounds like something that should be fixed in the tool, a fun
> little project for a dark winter night.

As a quick workaround, consider putting this in a .gitattributes file:

*.c	diff=cpp

This will tell git diff to use the predefined regex for finding function
headers in c++ files for all C files as well. It differs from the
default C regex in that it tries to exclude visibility class labels
("protected:" etc) and therefore incidentally excludes all labels ;-)

Enjoy!
.Dave.
Daniel Vetter June 15, 2015, 12:34 p.m. UTC | #5
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:27:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> > >> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
> > >
> > > Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:
> > 
> > What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?
> 
> Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added,
> the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches
> cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label,
> surroundng context, and/or line numbers.

Yeah that's an annoying sucker but I guess just part of the fail. Imo
consistency wins this bikeshed ;-)

> I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied
> patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar.

Diff doesn't look at the heading after the @@ but only at concept. And
when applying with some mismatches that can end up in really surprising
places. Chaning how we place labels won't help.
-Daniel
Dave Gordon June 15, 2015, 6:18 p.m. UTC | #6
On 15/06/15 13:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:27:21PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 12:24:45PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jun 2015, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
>>>>> I noticed one of those and it turned out we have a few lingering around.
>>>>
>>>> Yuck. I'd prefer we got the other way. Consider the following diffs for example:
>>>
>>> What's the, uh, diff between those to consider?
>>
>> Look at the @@ line. One tells you in which function the line is added,
>> the other one doesn't. It always pisses me off when reviewing patches
>> cause then I have to figure out the function based on the label,
>> surroundng context, and/or line numbers.
> 
> Yeah that's an annoying sucker but I guess just part of the fail. Imo
> consistency wins this bikeshed ;-)
> 
>> I'm also thinking this may have caused some of the numerous misapplied
>> patches we've had since our labels all tend to be similar.
> 
> Diff doesn't look at the heading after the @@ but only at concept. And
> when applying with some mismatches that can end up in really surprising
> places. Chaning how we place labels won't help.
> -Daniel

You could vary the label by giving each one some compressed prefix based
on the name of the function it's in, a sort of poor man's namespacing ...

i915_do_some_stuff()
{
	...
	goto dss_exit;
	...

dss_exit:
	return ret;
}

i915_exciting_new_function()
{
	...
	goto enf_exit;
	...

enf_exit:
	return ret;
}

.Dave.

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index 7f6fd85..342509d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -942,6 +942,7 @@  out:
 
 	pps_unlock(intel_dp);
 
+	// foo
 	return ret;
 }

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
index 5901e00..2673347 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
@@ -942,6 +942,7 @@  intel_dp_aux_ch(struct intel_dp *intel_dp,
 
 	pps_unlock(intel_dp);
 
+	// foo
 	return ret;
 }