On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:17:23PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lespiau, Damien > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:26 PM > > To: Daniel Vetter > > Cc: Mateo Lozano, Oscar; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/50] drm/i915: > > s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:08:36PM +0100, oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > From: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > In the upcoming patches, we plan to break the correlation between > > > > engines (a.k.a. rings) and ringbuffers, so it makes sense to > > > > refactor the code and make the change obvious. > > > > > > > > No functional changes. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > If we rename stuff I'd vote for something close to Bspec language, > > > like CS. So maybe intel_cs_engine? > > Bikeshedding much, are we? :) > If we want to get closer to bspecish, intel_engine_cs would be better. I'm ok with that too ;-) > > Also, can we have such patches (and the like of "drm/i915: > > for_each_ring") pushed early when everyone is happy with them, they cause > > constant rebasing pain. > > I second that motion! Fully agreed - as soon as we have a rough sketch of where we want to go to I'll pull in the rename. Aside I highly suggest to do the rename with coccinelle and regerate it on rebases - that's much less error-prone than doing it by hand. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
