Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2017-11-14 19:23:24) > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:27:26 +0100, Chris Wilson > <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-14 18:19:01) > >> > >> > >> On 11/14/2017 5:53 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote: > >> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:48:11 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble > >> > <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> -static void i915_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data) > >> >> +static void intel_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data) > >> > > >> > and verbose "guc_submission_handler()" ? > >> > > >> Yes. Should we rename irq_tasklet to submission_tasklet? > >> then we can s/intel_lrc_irq_handler/execlists_submission_tasklet and > >> s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet. > >> Again trying to maintain the nomenclature consistency for Execlists and > >> GuC. > > > > Ok. Do that as a separate (initial) step. > > Hmm. By "tasklet" I usually think of "tasklet_struct". Then > "guc_submission_tasklet" suggests that this is another kind > or customized "tasklet" struct. So maybe use full name: > > s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet_func ? Please no. You'll grow to dislike the tautology immensely! struct tasklet tasklet; execlists->tasklet = execlists_submission_tasklet; execlists->tasklet = guc_submission_tasklet; tasklet_schedule(engine->execlists.tasklet) etc is clear to me. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
