Em Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 06:12:40PM +0000, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:13:24 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:15:37PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > >> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung....@lge.com>
> >> Introduce ui_progress_setup() and ui_progress__advance() to separate > >> out from the session logic. It'll be used by other places in the > >> upcoming patch. > > Renaming this from 'perf_progress' to 'ui_progress', as the existing > > method names implies, and also because this is not perf specific at all > > :-) > I'm not sure I understood you correctly. You're talking about the > struct perf_progree right? We already have struct ui_progress for > saving UI-specific function pointers. Am I missing something? Yes, the existing 'struct ui_progress' is not a per instance progress bar class, but a set of operations that an specific UI sets for use after some init progress, so it is misnamed, it should be, following kernel examples, ui_progress_ops, and then ui_progress can be used for what you called perf_progress. I'll work on that, enjoy Edinburgh! :-) - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
