Re: [PATCH 00/11] A few patches around DRM logging

From: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
To: Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>
Cc: DRI mailing list <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] A few patches around DRM logging
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:09:41 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPM=9txBivaUwxfGQyd2LvnVrxNwzR2cUoopJwMD-zevTXqOjg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAQKjZOQWaEiJ4ikCaYRf-_wNGGo4SxxqHX3-jc7pvk3+ZVwgw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com> wrote:
> 2014-03-25 0:53 GMT+09:00 Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>:
>> As patch 8/11 explains, I noticed that we where evaluating the arguments to
>> drm_ut_debug_printk() even when drm.debug was 0, doing some work for no good
>> reason. By pulling the test on drm_debug before calling drm_ut_debug_printk(),
>> we skip those instructions that only need to be executed when logging is on.
>>
>> The remaining patches are bonus clean-ups, with the main goal of removing
>> DRM_LOG* macros that are not really used throughout the code base. After that,
>> it's possible to simplify a bit drm_ut_debug_printk(). All pretty
>> straightforward cleanups, but still worthwhile IMHO.
>>
>> For driver-specific patches (why some of you are Cced in that series), I'd love
>> if you could take the time to throw a Acked-by/Reviewed-by tag. Also, do you
>> have any objection if the driver specific patch go through the DRM tree?
>> should people judge that series worthwhile, of course.
>
All pulled into -next, thanks,

Dave.