On 22 November 2017 at 21:43, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Matthew Auld (2017-11-22 21:19:16) >> The name mappable_end seems to suggest the end of the mappable region, > > This seems to be arguing for using _end :) > >> but is actually just the size, so make that obvious to the reader. > > We didn't choose size because it is a subregion within the larger GTT. > > At this point, I'm not sold on the conversion. Some examples of > confusion would help, or comparison to other idioms in the code. Assuming we move forward with 'struct resource mappable', we would now have both: mappable.end mappable_end Where mappable.end is the end of the resource, and mappable_end is the size of the resource, which I found to be more than a little confusing. > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
