On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Erik Gilling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM, John Stultz <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given its the sync driver, its most obvious choice, but I agree its likely >> to collide with filesystem related or other sync_ named functions that don't >> have a subsystem prefix. >> >> Any suggestions? >> >> The only good alternative I can think of is that in some private >> conversations with DanielV, he referred to Android using "sync-points". >> >> Erik: Would syncpoint_ be an ok prefix? Or do you have other ideas? > > syncpoint would be semantically weird when you end up with struct > syncpoint_pt. I'm open to suggestions as long as it works with > XXXX_pt, XXXX_timeline, and XXXX_fence. I'll ask around the office > and see if someone has a good idea.
Colin Cross pointed out that this is limited to sync_fence_*, sync_pt_*, and sync_timeline_* and not sync_* so it's much less likely to have naming collisions. Cheers, Erik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
