On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: >> All of this is addressed in future patches. As we've discussed, I think >> I'll have to respin it anyway, so I'll name it as such upfront. To me it >> felt a little weird to start calling things "ggtt" before I made the >> separation. > > I think now that we know what the end result should (more or less at > least) look like we can aim to make it right the first time we touch a > piece of code. That will reduce the churn in the patch series and so > make the beast easier to review. > > Imo foreshadowing (to keep consistent with the "a patch series should > tell a story" analogy) is perfectly fine, and in many cases helps in > understanding the big picture of a large pile of patches. I've forgotten to add one thing: If you switch these again later on (layz me didn't check for that) it's imo best to stick with those names (presuming they fit, since the gtt_size vs. obj->size disdinction is a rather important one). Again I think now that we know where to go to it's best to get there with as few intermediate steps as possible. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
