On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 04:07:45PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 05 Mar 2024, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:41:49AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote: > >> I also wonder whether should we really emphasize things like "master"/"slave" > >> in function names. I thought that one idea in our refactoring was to unify > >> joined pipes handling so that there are no(or at least almost no) explicit code > >> paths/function names for masters/slaves. > > > > There are no master vs. slave functions. The split is going to be > > transcoder/port vs. pipe. > > Besides, for modern platforms the spec has already been changed to use > primary/secondary terminology. When renaming or refactoring stuff, > please switch to them instead of sticking with master/slave. If the spec got updated then we should probably just do a full rename pass over the whole codebase instead of confusing things more by mixing up the terminology. Also we should probably s/bigjoiner/joiner/ to make it clear that all of it also applies to uncompressed joiner as well. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
