[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VI1P193MB0752A8088A084373A73D2A6899EFA@VI1P193MB0752.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 06:16:56 +0800
From: Juntong Deng <juntong.deng@...look.com>
To: Zack Rusin <zackr@...are.com>, "daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>,
"maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com"
<maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
"mripard@...nel.org" <mripard@...nel.org>,
"airlied@...il.com" <airlied@...il.com>,
"tzimmermann@...e.de" <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Linux-graphics-maintainer <Linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com>
Cc: "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Rename drm_ioctl_flags() to eliminate duplicate
declaration warning
On 2023/9/7 5:13, Zack Rusin wrote:
>
> Can we follow the namespace_action naming convention here? i.e.
> drm_ioctl_flags_check instead. I find it a lot easier to look up/memorise the api if
> naming is consistent.
>
> z
you are right!
I will send a new patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists