Re: [PATCH 5/9] drm/i915: Use a define for the default priority [0]

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 05/05/2017 10:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:31:14AM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>> Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:32:34PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
>>>> On ke, 2017-05-03 at 12:37 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Explicitly assign the default priority, and give it a name (macro).
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>>>  	kref_init(&ctx->ref);
>>>>>  	list_add_tail(&ctx->link, &dev_priv->context_list);
>>>>>  	ctx->i915 = dev_priv;
>>>>> +	ctx->priority = I915_PRIORITY_DFL;
>>>>
>>>> I915_PRIORITY_DEFAULT would work better.
>>>
>>> On the one hand I have the symmetry with MIN, DFL, MAX, on the other
>>> hand DFL is plain bizarre.
>>
>> DEF?
>
> I915_PRIORITY_DEFEAT. I'm perfectly happy just to 0, pesky Tvrtko.

Will to argue deflated. :) I suggested it for benefit in one of the 
later patches which explicitly compared against zero. if < 0 && 
!cap_sys_admin or something.. I thought being explicit what zero means 
there would be a good thing.

DEFAULT or DEF both sounds good to me. Or NORMAL. DFL is not entirely 
new (SIG_DFL) but it does look very weird.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx