Re: [PATCH 07/12] drm/i915: Rename request->ringbuf to request->ring

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 24/11/15 15:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 03:08:09PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 20/11/15 12:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
Now that we have disambuigated ring and engine, we can use the clearer
and more consistent name for the intel_ringbuffer pointer in the
request.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h            |   2 +-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c            |  28 +++---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c    |   2 +-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c |   4 +-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c        |   6 +-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c       |  10 +-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c           | 149 ++++++++++++++---------------
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c          |  32 +++----
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c       |  42 ++++----
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c    |  86 ++++++++---------
  10 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 9ce8b3fcb3a0..b7eaa2deb437 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -2185,7 +2185,7 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_request {
  	 * context.
  	 */
  	struct intel_context *ctx;
-	struct intel_ringbuffer *ringbuf;
+	struct intel_ringbuffer *ring;

What was the problem with ringbuf? Struct is still called ringbuf
and the files as well after the patch series.

It introduced a major naming clash with existing code. I am trying to
remove the needlessly duplicated interfaces, and restore the historic
naming conventions.

Ok my point was that I am not sure if it is worth renaming things a) partially, and b) that ring is a good name for intel_ringbuffer. Ringbuf sounds at least just as good, in fact better to me. So this renaming feels like unnecessary churn. And the fact you don't even do all of them in the patch series just reinforces that.

But as Daniel already approved this it doesn't really matter apart for "for the record".

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux