Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Pekka,

On 11/12/21 09:56, Pekka Paalanen wrote:

[snip]

>
> Hi,
>
> these ideas make sense to me, so FWIW,
>
> Acked-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>

Thanks.

> There is one nitpick I'd like to ask about:
>
> +bool drm_get_modeset(void)
> +{
> +     return !drm_nomodeset;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_get_modeset);
>
> Doesn't "get" have a special meaning in the kernel land, like "take a
> strong reference on an object and return it"?

That's a very good point.

> As this is just returning bool without changing anything, the usual
> word to use is "is". Since this function is also used at most once per
> driver, which is rarely, it could have a long and descriptive name.
>
> For example:
>
> bool drm_is_modeset_driver_allowed(void);
>

Yeah, naming is hard. Jani also mentioned that he didn't like this
function name, so I don't mind to re-spin the series only for that.

> - "drm" is the namespace
> - "is" implies it is a read-only boolean inspection
> - "modeset" is the feature being checked
> - "driver" implies it is supposed gate driver loading or
>   initialization, rather than modesets after drivers have loaded
> - "allowed" says it is asking about general policy rather than what a
>   driver does
>

I believe that name is more verbose than needed. But don't have a
strong opinion and could use it if others agree.

> Just a bikeshed, I'll leave it to actual kernel devs to say if this
> would be more appropriate or worth it.
>

I think is worth it and better to do it now before the patches land, but
we could wait for others to chime in.

Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat