On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:08:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > 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 > I don't recall object size being very important actually, so I don't think the distinction is too important, but I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. With the sg page stuff that Imre did, I think most size calculations unrelated to gtt size are there anyway, and most of our mm (not page allocation) code should only ever care about the gtt. > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
