> > > -static int guc_log_relay_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> > > +static int guc_log_relay_ctl_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >
> > Again not objecting, but what is the purpose/thinking behind adding _ctl_
> > to these function names? The previous names seemed fine?
> >
> Nothing wrong with the previous one - but since the existing relay logging
> tool
> never worked anyways, i figure why not change the name to include "ctl" since
> we
> are already using it for the tool to trigger flush by writing '1' to it,...
> if in
> future we ever need more controls like 'write 2 for something else' or 'write
> 3
> for something else' (i can think of a few examples but nothing urgent that
> needs to
> be part of this immediate series).
>
> I'm okay with changing back to original name - but for now will assume this
> new name
> is okay - will connect offline.
>
Alan: I did want to also raise the point that this series also gets all the
function and debufs names to align with "guc_log_relay_[function/data"]
That is occuring across all the new handles i have added and why i am changing
some of the old ones like the above "guc_log_relay_ctl"
