On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think I grumbled about this before, but the rq vs. req distinction >> elludes me. rq = runqueue in my reading ... What do we need to use "req" >> for that we're forced to have such an ambigious name for requests? > > Because I use rq everywhere and runqueues aren't very common in the > kernel? Besides which why did you change some of my _request to _req? Not intentionally, maybe as part of resolving a conflict. I haven't decided yet what to do about the overall situation, but giving our irc discussion I'm indeed inclined to run all patches through sed -e 's/\<rq\>/req/' before applying. Overall this really looks like a bikeshed (with a slight bias towards req from grepping other sources), and whomever's first wins with the color choice, just to avoid conflicts. -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
