On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Egbert Eich <eich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'm afraid existing conventions trump what makes sense. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
