Re: [PATCH] xf86drm: remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily

From: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@google.com>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xf86drm: remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:51:53 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACvgo51ORXsQtLLd+J5xEuDcqgyr66a64PiPM9X+047+MFL9wg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGS+omCQEOFP=OUjReUtmb82KHYjKW-z64vsz-fcv_Cc-V1LEw@mail.gmail.com>

Seems like I'm either too subtle and/or too stingy earlier.

If drmAvailable() returns false, we have two options:
 - opt for the old-schoold (dri1) and ask drm_server_info to load the
module for us, or
 - bail out, as neither drmOpenByBusid() or drmOpenByName() will be
able to open the device considering that a DRM module is not loaded.

So what I was hinting earlier was to make the above more obvious,
rather than reordering the arguments in the if clause. How does that
sound ?

Thanks
Emil

On 28 May 2015 at 15:15, Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@google.com> wrote:
> It's not necessary if we are about to skip the rest of the if clause anyway
> because name is NULL.
>
> On May 28, 2015 9:14 PM, "Emil Velikov" <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 May 2015 at 00:57, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com> wrote:
>> > This is to remove to open the DRM device unnecessarily as call
>> > drmAvailable() when name is NULL or drm_server_info is NULL in
>> > drmOpenWithType function.
>> >
>> Why do you believe that calling drmAvailable() is not necessary ? If
>> that's the case should one just nuke the call all together ?
>>
>> -Emil
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel