[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 09/11] drm: Convert open-coded yes/no strings to yesno()

Lucas De Marchi lucas.demarchi at intel.com
Wed Jan 26 10:43:45 UTC 2022


On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:12:50PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:39 AM Lucas De Marchi
><lucas.demarchi at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> linux/string_helpers.h provides a helper to return "yes"/"no" strings.
>> Replace the open coded versions with str_yes_no(). The places were

oops, I replaced yesno() here but forgot to do so in the title

>> identified with the following semantic patch:
>>
>>         @@
>>         expression b;
>>         @@
>>
>>         - b ? "yes" : "no"
>>         + str_yes_no(b)
>>
>> Then the includes were added, so we include-what-we-use, and parenthesis
>> adjusted in drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_debugfs.c. After the conversion we
>> still see the same binary sizes:
>>
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>   51149    3295     212   54656    d580 virtio/virtio-gpu.ko.old
>>   51149    3295     212   54656    d580 virtio/virtio-gpu.ko
>> 1441491   60340     800 1502631  16eda7 radeon/radeon.ko.old
>> 1441491   60340     800 1502631  16eda7 radeon/radeon.ko
>> 6125369  328538   34000 6487907  62ff63 amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.ko.old
>> 6125369  328538   34000 6487907  62ff63 amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.ko
>>  411986   10490    6176  428652   68a6c drm.ko.old
>>  411986   10490    6176  428652   68a6c drm.ko
>>   98129    1636     264  100029   186bd dp/drm_dp_helper.ko.old
>>   98129    1636     264  100029   186bd dp/drm_dp_helper.ko
>> 1973432  109640    2352 2085424  1fd230 nouveau/nouveau.ko.old
>> 1973432  109640    2352 2085424  1fd230 nouveau/nouveau.ko
>
>This probably won't change for modules, but if you compile in the
>linker may try to optimize it. Would be nice to see the old-new for
>`make allyesconfig` or equivalent.

just like it would already do, no? I can try and see what happens, but
my feeling is that we won't have any change.

>
>...
>
>>         seq_printf(m, "\tDP branch device present: %s\n",
>> -                  branch_device ? "yes" : "no");
>> +                  str_yes_no(branch_device));
>
>Can it be now on one line? Same Q for all similar cases in the entire series.

I saw that question in the previous version. I think those are very
subjective is they all go a little bit over 80 chars. Some maintainers
may prefer one way or the other.

Here we are reducing just 3 chars so I assumed that is the preferred
style here.  Also keeping it as is helps with the mass conversion since
it's easily repeatable if another iteration is needed.

thanks
Lucas De Marchi



More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list