Re: [PATCH v18 04/26] drm/shmem-helper: Refactor locked/unlocked functions

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

 



On 12/14/23 21:16, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:43:16PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 12/4/23 15:55, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>> Okay, that means s/_locked/_nolock/ in drm_gem_shmem_helpers.{c,h}, I
>>>> guess.
>>
>> DRM subsys and majority of kernel uses common _locked postfix. We should
>> retain the old naming scheme by using _locked() in DRM. It's not
>> worthwhile changing the name to a much less popular variant for a no
>> good reason.
>>
>> Maxime, are you okay with keeping the _locked name?
> 
> Yeah... I still don't really like it, but you're right that it's best to
> remain consistent over my opinion :)
Thanks for the review!

Best regards,
Dmitry





[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux