On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 04:06:14PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 16/03/16 16:00, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:40:54PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>Majority of the code calls these ringbuf so fix up a few > >>places which use something else to be consistent. > > > >I absolutely detest ringbuf as a name. The point of calling the engine > >the engine was that we could call the ring state the ring. > > :) I knew it. It is easily doable but it would be a somewhat bigger > and again disruptive patch. Maybe someone else should do it so I am > not the only one causing rebasing pain: It's because it was the easier route that lead us into the current miasma. It just takes a few more steps to get ringbufs to be rings. I don't have them as coccinelle patches, but in a few hours I'll see what they look like after rebasing. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
