Jani Nikula writes: > > Shouldn't this be _unlocked? > > I thought the convention was that functions that do not acquire locks > are called _unlocked (although they may require a lock to be held when > called). And you might have foo() that grabs locks around a call to > foo_unlocked(). > Looking into this, functions that are to be called in a context where the lock is already held should receive the suffix _locked while those which do locking themselves and thus need to be called from a context that doesn't hold this lock already receive the suffix _unlocked: the past tense refers to what has happened before. Cheers, Egbert. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
