Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
