From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933280AbcASUcO (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:32:14 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:34338 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933184AbcASUb7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:31:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:32:03 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter To: Gustavo Padovan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, daniels@collabora.com, Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Riley Andrews , Rob Clark , Greg Hackmann , John Harrison , Gustavo Padovan Subject: Re: [RFC 00/29] De-stage android's sync framework Message-ID: <20160119203203.GV19130@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: Gustavo Padovan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, daniels@collabora.com, Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Riley Andrews , Rob Clark , Greg Hackmann , John Harrison , Gustavo Padovan References: <1452869739-3304-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <20160119110017.GZ19130@phenom.ffwll.local> <20160119201040.GD8217@joana> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160119201040.GD8217@joana> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 4.3.0-1-amd64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 06:10:40PM -0200, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > 2016-01-19 Daniel Vetter : > > - get_timeline_name and get_driver_name are imo too much indirection, just > > add ->(drv_)name field to each of these. > > I don't think is a good idea to change that now as there are other fence > users in the kernel using get_timeline_name and get_driver_name. What I > propose is try get rid of this when moving ops from fences to > fence_timeline. Makes sense. And yeah I only realized after sending that this wasn't added by your patches, just that your patches added the (core) users for it. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch