Nouveau - Jan 2025 - [PATCH] drm/sched: Use struct for drm_sched_init() params

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:33:01AM +0100, Philipp Stanner
wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 18:16 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:08:20 +0100
> > Philipp Stanner <phasta at kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > ?int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > > - ?? const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops,
> > > - ?? struct workqueue_struct *submit_wq,
> > > - ?? u32 num_rqs, u32 credit_limit, unsigned int hang_limit,
> > > - ?? long timeout, struct workqueue_struct *timeout_wq,
> > > - ?? atomic_t *score, const char *name, struct device *dev);
> > > + const struct drm_sched_init_params *params);
> > 
> > 
> > Another nit: indenting is messed up here.
> 
> That was done on purpose.
Let's not change this convention, it's used all over the kernel tree,
including
the GPU scheduler. People are used to read code that is formatted this way, plus
the attempt of changing it will make code formatting inconsistent.

On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 10:29 +0100, Danilo Krummrich
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:33:01AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 18:16 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:08:20 +0100
> > > Philipp Stanner <phasta at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ?int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > > > - ?? const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops,
> > > > - ?? struct workqueue_struct *submit_wq,
> > > > - ?? u32 num_rqs, u32 credit_limit, unsigned int hang_limit,
> > > > - ?? long timeout, struct workqueue_struct *timeout_wq,
> > > > - ?? atomic_t *score, const char *name, struct device *dev);
> > > > + const struct drm_sched_init_params *params);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Another nit: indenting is messed up here.
> > 
> > That was done on purpose.
> 
> Let's not change this convention, it's used all over the kernel
tree,
> including
> the GPU scheduler. People are used to read code that is formatted
> this way, plus
> the attempt of changing it will make code formatting inconsistent.
Both the tree and this file are already inconsistent in regards to
this.

Anyways, what is your proposed solution to ridiculous nonsense like
this?

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c#L1296

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 10:35:43AM +0100, Philipp Stanner
wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 10:29 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:33:01AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 18:16 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:08:20 +0100
> > > > Philipp Stanner <phasta at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > ?int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > > > > - ?? const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops,
> > > > > - ?? struct workqueue_struct *submit_wq,
> > > > > - ?? u32 num_rqs, u32 credit_limit, unsigned int
hang_limit,
> > > > > - ?? long timeout, struct workqueue_struct *timeout_wq,
> > > > > - ?? atomic_t *score, const char *name, struct device
*dev);
> > > > > + const struct drm_sched_init_params *params);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Another nit: indenting is messed up here.
> > > 
> > > That was done on purpose.
> > 
> > Let's not change this convention, it's used all over the
kernel tree,
> > including
> > the GPU scheduler. People are used to read code that is formatted
> > this way, plus
> > the attempt of changing it will make code formatting inconsistent.
> 
> Both the tree and this file are already inconsistent in regards to
> this.
That's not really a good argument to make it more inconsistent, is it?
> 
> Anyways, what is your proposed solution to ridiculous nonsense like
> this?
> 
>
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13-rc3/source/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c#L1296
I don't think this one needs a solution.

The kernel picked a convention long ago, which also has downsides. If it gets
too bad, we can deviate from conventions at any point of time; for the thing
that otherwise would be bad, but we shouldn't do it in general.