Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:33:10 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] x86: sysfb: remove sysfb when probing real hw |
| |
* David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> +/* > + * Unregister the sysfb and prevent new sysfbs from getting registered. Can be > + * called from any context except recursively or from sysfb_register(). > + * Used by remove_conflicting_framebuffers() and friends. > + */ > +void sysfb_unregister(const struct apertures_struct *apert, bool primary) > +{ > + mutex_lock(&sysfb_lock); > + if (!IS_ERR(sysfb_dev) && sysfb_dev) { > + if (sysfb_match(apert, primary)) { > + platform_device_unregister(sysfb_dev); > + sysfb_dev = ERR_PTR(-EALREADY); > + } > + } else { > + /* if !sysfb_dev, set err so no new sysfb is probed later */ > + sysfb_dev = ERR_PTR(-EALREADY);
Just a small detail: we can get into this 'else' branch not just with NULL, but also with IS_ERR(sysfb_dev). In that case we override whatever error code is contained in sysfb_dev and overwrite it with ERR_PTR(-EALREADY).
(Probably not a big deal, because we don't actually ever seem to extract the error code from the pointer, but wanted to mention it.)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_SYSFB > +#include <asm/sysfb.h> > +#endif
Pet peeve, this looks sexier:
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_SYSFB # include <asm/sysfb.h> #endif
> @@ -1604,6 +1607,17 @@ static void do_remove_conflicting_framebuffers(struct apertures_struct *a, > } > } > > +static void remove_conflicting_sysfb(const struct apertures_struct *apert, > + bool primary) > +{ > + if (!apert) > + return; > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_SYSFB > + sysfb_unregister(apert, primary); > +#endif > +}
So why not make sysfb_unregister() accept a !apert parameter (it would simply return), at which point remove_conflicting_sysfb() could be eliminated and just be replaced with a direct sysfb_unregister() call - with no #ifdefs.
We only need #ifdefs for the sysfb_unregister() declaration in the .h file.
At first sight this looks simpler and cleaner for the fix itself - no need for extra cleanups for this detail.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |