From: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Rename drm_i915_gem_request to i915_request
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:15:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mv0iv584.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <151816875432.28809.337270802731043925@mail.alporthouse.com>
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2018-02-09 07:48:21)
>> Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-09 01:11:34)
>> > We want to de-emphasize the link between the request (dependency,
>> > execution and fence tracking) from GEM and so rename the struct from
>> > drm_i915_gem_request to i915_request. That is we may implement the GEM
>> > user interface on top of requests, but they are an abstraction for
>> > tracking execution rather than an implementation detail of GEM. (Since
>> > they are not tied to HW, we keep the i915 prefix as opposed to intel.)
>>
>> There are also some req -> rq renames in addition to function renames.
>>
>> If we're touching this much code, would it make sense to at least
>> consolidate the parameter names into "request" or "req" when touched
>> here.
>
> Never req. I always used rq in the pre-existing code as shorthand, and
> request otherwise.
One could argue that rq is too short but it is so fundamental concept
in gem code that obviousess/uniqueness is usually guaranteed.
My vote will go to 'rq' too.
-Mika
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-09 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-08 23:11 [PATCH] drm/i915: Rename drm_i915_gem_request to i915_request Chris Wilson
2018-02-08 23:49 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2018-02-09 6:54 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: warning " Patchwork
2018-02-09 7:48 ` [PATCH] " Joonas Lahtinen
2018-02-09 9:32 ` Chris Wilson
2018-02-09 10:15 ` Mika Kuoppala [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-02-21 9:56 Chris Wilson
2018-02-21 12:05 ` Mika Kuoppala
2018-02-21 12:54 ` Michał Winiarski
2018-02-21 18:40 ` Joonas Lahtinen
2018-02-21 21:31 ` Chris Wilson
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=87mv0iv584.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com \
--to=mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@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