On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:44:13PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 12/01/16 11:01, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:04:20AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>Perhaps then leave the structure name as is and just rename the > >>function to i915_gem_request_assign_active? I think that describes > >>better what is actually happening. > > > >i915_gem_request_update_active()? > > > >request_assign_active() says to me that it is the request we are acting > >on and it can have only one active entity. "update" could go either way. > > > >i915_gem_active_add_to_request() is the full version I guess, or just > >i915_gem_active_set(). > > > >i915_gem_request_mark_active() -> i915_gem_active_set() > > Sorry, or the short version might be good enough and better in the > code since shorter. Just I think parameters need to be re-ordered. Yes, i915_gem_active_set() would operate on the i915_gem_active and take i915_gem_request as its parameter. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
