[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <156276282845.11940.4812142560907762693@skylake-alporthouse-com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:47:08 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
MichaĆ Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@...el.com>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Rename functions to match their entry points
Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2019-07-10 13:36:25)
> Need for this was identified while working on split of driver unbind
> path into _remove() and _release() parts. Consistency in function
> naming has been recognized as helpful when trying to work out which
> phase the code is in.
>
> What I'm still not sure about is desired depth of that modification -
> how deep should we go down with renaming to not override meaningfull
> function names. Please advise if you think still more deep renaming
> makes sense.
I did a double take over "driver_release" but by the end I was in
agreement.
The early_release though, that is worth a bit of artistic license to say
early_probe pairs with late_release.
-Chris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists