[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: make debug printer shown_bug_once variable to drm_i915_private

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-11-15 11:04:28)
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-11-15 10:18:40)
> >> Get rid of the module specific static variable.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h   | 2 ++
> >>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c | 9 ++++-----
> >>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >> index 1779f600fcfb..e11ee3268ae3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> >> @@ -1283,6 +1283,8 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
> >>         /* Mutex to protect the above hdcp component related values. */
> >>         struct mutex hdcp_comp_mutex;
> >>  
> >> +       bool shown_bug_once;
> >> +
> >>         I915_SELFTEST_DECLARE(struct i915_selftest_stash selftest;)
> >>  
> >>         /*
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
> >> index c47261ae86ea..f434274b0b29 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.c
> >> @@ -13,11 +13,10 @@
> >>                     "providing the dmesg log by booting with drm.debug=0xf"
> >>  
> >>  void
> >> -__i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
> >> +__i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *i915, const char *level,
> >>               const char *fmt, ...)
> >>  {
> >> -       static bool shown_bug_once;
> >> -       struct device *kdev = dev_priv->drm.dev;
> >> +       struct device *kdev = i915->drm.dev;
> >>         bool is_error = level[1] <= KERN_ERR[1];
> >>         bool is_debug = level[1] == KERN_DEBUG[1];
> >>         struct va_format vaf;
> >> @@ -39,7 +38,7 @@ __i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
> >>  
> >>         va_end(args);
> >>  
> >> -       if (is_error && !shown_bug_once) {
> >> +       if (is_error && !i915->shown_bug_once) {
> >>                 /*
> >>                  * Ask the user to file a bug report for the error, except
> >>                  * if they may have caused the bug by fiddling with unsafe
> >> @@ -47,7 +46,7 @@ __i915_printk(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const char *level,
> >>                  */
> >>                 if (!test_taint(TAINT_USER))
> >>                         dev_notice(kdev, "%s", FDO_BUG_MSG);
> >
> > I feel this plea to the users to file a bug report should be a one-time
> > thing; a true global.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> I am wondering if we should have a convention of naming or commenting
> legit globals, both to help automation detecting new accidental ones,
> and to help people figure out not to send another conversion patch such
> as this.

global_i915_show_bug_once
module_i915_show_bug_once
this_is_not_a_drill_show_the_bug_only_once

Reverse Hungarian namespace?
-Chris