[PATCH 1/4] drm: Introduce drm_modeset_lock_ctx_retry()

[Fernando Ramos]

On 21/10/13 03:06PM, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > And yes C is dangerous, but also C is verbose. I think one lesson from igt
> > is that too many magic block constructs are bad, it's just not how C
> > works. Definitely not in the kernel, where "oops I got it wrong because it
> > was too clever" is bad.
> > 
> > > > Yes the macro we have is also not nice, but at least it's a screaming
> > > > macro since it's all uppercase, so options are all a bit sucky. Which
> > > > leads me to think we have a bit a https://xkcd.com/927/ situation going
> > > > on.
> > > > 
> > > > I think minimally we should have one way to do this.
> > > 
> > > Well, there is no one way atm. All you can do is hand roll all the
> > > boilerplate (and likely get it slightly wrong) if you don't want
> > > lock_all.
> > > 
> > > The current macros only help with lock_all, and IMO the hidden gotos
> > > are even uglier than a hidden for loop. Fernando already hit a case
> > > where he couldn't use the macros twice due to conflicting goto
> > > labels. With this for loop thing I think it would have just worked(tm).
> > 
> > I'm totally ok with repainting the shed, I just don't want some 80s
> > multicolor flash show.
> 
> You have a better idea in mind?

Sorry, I completely forgot this discussion was going on and I just published V4
of my patch set here:

    https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20211013204846.90026-1-greenfoo@u92.eu/

Please, feel free to let me know (ideally, as a reply to the corresponding i915
patch from that set) if you rather me not to modify i915 files for now.

Thanks.