Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-21 11:56:36) > We want to de-emphasize the link between the request (dependency, > execution and fence tracking) from GEM and so rename the struct from > drm_i915_gem_request to i915_request. That is we may implement the GEM > user interface on top of requests, but they are an abstraction for > tracking execution rather than an implementation detail of GEM. (Since > they are not tied to HW, we keep the i915 prefix as opposed to intel.) > > In short, the spatch: > @@ > > @@ > - struct drm_i915_gem_request > + struct i915_request > > A corollary to contracting the type name, we also harmonise on using > 'rq' shorthand for local variables where space if of the essence and > repetition makes 'request' unwieldy. For globals and struct members, > 'request' is still much preferred for its clarity. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> > Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
Right, should not cause a mayhem when merged now. Acked-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> Regards, Joonas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
