[waffle] [PATCH 00/13] Core waffle cleanups

[Emil Velikov]

On 23 August 2016 at 12:26, Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/23/2016 12:52 PM, Tapani Pälli wrote:
>>
>> On 08/18/2016 01:28 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21 June 2016 at 11:33, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16 May 2016 at 11:57, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 May 2016 at 11:54, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While looking at the gbm/egl I've noticed a few interesting bits.
>>>>>>  - We do NULL checking for values that are guaranteed by API to be
>>>>>> non-NULL.
>>>>>>  - wcore_*_init does not need a return type, plus in some places we
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> not calling it in the correct time.
>>>>>>  - wcore_*_teardown is a simple wrapper around assert, which (at the
>>>>>> time the function should be called) is too late/not needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this series simplifies these, giving us a nice -350 line count ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole thing can be found in
>>>>>> https://github.com/evelikov/waffle/tree/for-upstream/core-cleanups
>>>>>>
>>>>> For some reason git send-email seems to be choking on patches 08/13
>>>>> and 09/13. Please check those out via the above repo or let me know if
>>>>> you'd prefer them in other format.
>>>>>
>>>> I might have gone overboard (too much) folding the error label(s) in
>>>> 09/13 "core: remove wcore_*_init() return type". I can split those up
>>>> if people prefer.
>>>>
>>> Humble poke.
>>
>>
>>
>> Patches 1 (cleanup) and 3-7 (do not check null since api_check_entry did
>> it already):
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.palli at intel.com>
>>
>> (I will check the rest from the repo)
>
>
> Also R-B to 12 and 13.
>
Thanks Tapani. Hope we can find someone with commit access to push these.

> Question about "core: remove wcore_*_teardown()" patch:
>
> Is it possible that core classes will have allocations or some other stuff
> in their constructor that then needs cleanup in dtor in the future? If it
> happens then all of this infrastructure needs to be put back .. I'm just
> thinking if this is OK from that perspective?
>
I cannot think of any case that would require us to bring these back since:
 - waffle itself is meant to have/store little to no state (only some
*_platform can take more than 100 bytes) with the memory allocation
done in the platform rather than wcore.
I.e. wcore does not and should not [mc]alloc anything that needs to be freed.
 - the wcore api only 'links' the primitives initially thus there is
nothing that could/should be teardown.

One day as we add MT support we might need to rethink things, but we
would need a serious work either way, imho.
Emil