Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-14 19:47:05) > > > On 11/15/2017 1:01 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > > 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; > You meant "execlists->tasklet.func =" here right? > > execlists->tasklet = guc_submission_tasklet; > > > > tasklet_schedule(engine->execlists.tasklet) etc > > > > is clear to me. > > -Chris > Michal wanted to distinguish tasklet func from tasklet. I don't see the point as I don't find any confusion between a struct and a function. The tasklet is the function; struct tasklet is merely its integration to softirq. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
