From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
"Michal Wajdeczko" <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/i915: Rename global i915 to i915_params
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 11:59:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ingnj7n5.fsf@nikula.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170912153657.GS4914@intel.com>
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 03:28:09PM +0000, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>> Our global struct with params is named exactly the same way
>> as new preferred name for the drm_i915_private function parameter.
>
> Preferred by some, perhaps not by others.
>
> I suspect Jani will be disappointed at losing the cute symmetry
> between the kernel command line and the code.
More than anything I'm annoyed at the gradual sneaking in of the "new"
i915, dubbing it as "preferred", without proper upfront
discussion. Regardless of the name clash, which is a minor detail.
We implicitly rely on dev_priv all over the place. If we decide to
rename, there's going to be a flag day with *massive* conflicts all over
the place. I seriously question the need or the benefits of renaming
dev_priv to i915. What purpose does it serve that helps us better
maintain the driver? How much developer time will be spent on resolving
conflicts and rebasing patches?
Everyone who's ever contributed more than a couple of patches to i915
*knows* what dev_priv means. Everyone who talks about it calls it
"dev_priv". In general, that's a good test for variable naming - how do
you talk about it spoken language? Seems like "i915" would create
ambiguity, while "dev priv" is unambiguous in the i915 context.
My gut feeling says no. I'm not convinced there's a benefit to be
had. Which kind of makes the patch at hand unnecessary churn too.
Honestly, I'd rather see a patch renaming all drm_i915_private pointers
back to dev_priv.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-12 15:28 [RFC] drm/i915: Rename global i915 to i915_params Michal Wajdeczko
2017-09-12 15:36 ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-09-12 15:43 ` Chris Wilson
2017-09-13 9:04 ` Jani Nikula
2017-09-13 8:59 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2017-09-12 15:43 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-09-12 15:58 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2017-09-12 20:23 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ingnj7n5.fsf@nikula.org \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox