Re: Fwd: [PATCH 1/2] Framebuffer split

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:21:56PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Robert Millan<rmh@aybabtu.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:06:17AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >> Removed parts which are purely moving code around (of course it will
> >> be restored on commit).
> >
> > This is not a full review of the patch, just a quick overview.  But I have
> > a few comments:
> >
> >  - The "fb" naming is confusing.  "framebuffer" refers to a Linux API
> >    exported to userland on GNU/Linux, but it seems to be used for
> >    referring to the backend.  I think it's better if we call it just
> >    that ("backend").  Or maybe "driver" but that doesn't apply well to
> >    vbe.
> backend and driver aren't good names because it's neither a complete
> backend nor a driver. It's more like a functions library which can be
> used by drivers.

Well, that fits the definition of backend.

> Prefix video_fb was chosen deliberately to avoid
> names to become too long. I don't think that video_fb is of any more
> problem than video_vbe since FB is a widely used abbreviation when
> speaking about graphics.

Yes, but in this case we're speaking about the category where VBE belongs
to.  If people read "backend", that inmediately conveys an idea on what
it does.

If they read "fb", they just know it has something to do with video, but
they already knew that, so in practice it doesn't provide any information.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."