[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57a602e8-ba38-6cbb-078d-ac562b024441@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:46:44 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@...il.com>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
>> Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document "CodingStyle"
>> like the following?
>>
>> "…
>> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.
>> …"
>>
>>
>> Does this wording need any more adjustments?
>
> No.
I have got an other impression.
The terse description can trigger disagreements about the "what" and "why",
can't it?
> I wrote that and "restart" seems like a pretty clear name to me.
This identifier might be good enough to some degree.
I imagined that it would become better by the addition of a bit of information
from the jump target.
> I never wrote that you should harrass people with your nonsense patches.
This is true in principle.
But your adjustment for the document "CodingStyle" supported also a reconsideration
of the corresponding identifier selection.
Some developers disagreed with a proposed renaming while others reacted
in a positive way.
> In fact, I have asked you over and over again to stop.
This happened under different software update contexts occasionally.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists