Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2018-02-21 18:40:51) > Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-21 11:56:36) > > 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.) > > > > In short, the spatch: > > @@ > > > > @@ > > - struct drm_i915_gem_request > > + struct i915_request > > > > A corollary to contracting the type name, we also harmonise on using > > 'rq' shorthand for local variables where space if of the essence and > > repetition makes 'request' unwieldy. For globals and struct members, > > 'request' is still much preferred for its clarity. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > > Right, should not cause a mayhem when merged now. > > Acked-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> And pushed before the pain starts. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
