On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:15:14PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding thierry.reding@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/libdrm.h b/libdrm.h new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..23926e6f6741 --- /dev/null +++ b/libdrm.h @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +/*
- Copyright © 2014 NVIDIA Corporation
- Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
- copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
- to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
- the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
- and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
- Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
- The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
- all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
- THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
- IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
- FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
- THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S) OR AUTHOR(S) BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
- OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
- ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
- OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
- */
+#ifndef LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H +#define LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H
LIBDRM_LIBDRM_H sounds a bit clunky to me. Why LIBDRM twice? The other headers don't seem to prefix LIBDRM_ to their header-guards. In fact, many of them don't even have header-guards.
This was with the intention of marking it as an internal header file. So the LIBDRM_ prefix could be used consistently for all files that are not installed. xf86atomic.h uses that prefix as well.
If you look at the history of xf86atomic.h, it seems this strange header-guard is the result of a slightly careless replace. It used to be called intel_atomics.h, and have INTEL_ATOMICS_H as the header-guard. So I wouldn't lake that set too much of a precedence.
Also, does these macro really warrant making a top-level, generically named header?
There isn't really another header file where this would fit. Others are either installed (and therefore shouldn't be exposing these macros) or have a very specific purpose (xf86atomic.h).
I guess this is a matter of taste, and it would be great with some input from the other libdrm-people on this. I don't care too much either way...