[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xvo6rwsripjoiwazvjhkxvyleiexuhvclh7wvt5kuiw5cmkaa7@jgcdrtkzw7a6>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 19:16:39 +0100
From: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@...omium.org>,
Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Qiang Yu <yuq825@...il.com>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Emma Anholt <emma@...olt.net>, Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...labora.com, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 04/26] drm/shmem-helper: Refactor locked/unlocked
functions
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 :)
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists