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

Tapani Pälli tapani.palli at intel.com
Thu Aug 25 07:32:55 UTC 2016

On 08/23/2016 05:40 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I cannot really come up with such case either .. maybe only some 
debugging/tracing could be hooked there but yeah .. just wanted to check 
if there is possible 'futureproofing' in place there.

R-B also to following patches:

egl: tweak wegl_platform_init()
wayland: tweak wayland_wrapper_init()

// Tapani

More information about the waffle mailing list