[PATCH 1/2] lib/xe/xe_spin: move the spinner related functions to lib

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 10:13:06AM -0600, Gurram, Pravalika wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: De Marchi, Lucas <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:09 PM
>> To: Kempczynski, Zbigniew <zbigniew.kempczynski at intel.com>
>> Cc: Gurram, Pravalika <pravalika.gurram at intel.com>; igt-
>> dev at lists.freedesktop.org; Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/xe/xe_spin: move the spinner related functions
>> to lib
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 10:01:41AM +0100, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote:
>> >+Lucas
>>
>> Pravalika, please keep me in Cc. I don't watch the igt mailing list close
>> enough, particularly when it's a follow up to a suggestion I gave.
>>
>> >
>> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 01:14:02PM +0530, Pravalika Gurram wrote:
>> >> move spin_ctx_init,spin_ctx_start,spin_ctx_end,spin_ctx_destroy
>> >> to xe spin lib to avoid code redundancy.
>> >>
>> >> v2: use allocator based on developer preference.
>> >>     change spin_ctx to xe_spin_ctx to avoid name clashes [Zbigniew]
>>
>> but we already have another thing named ctx there, the rename doesn't
>> improve it.
>>
>>  From lib/xe/xe_spin.h, what should be added on is
>>
>> struct xe_cork {
>> 	struct xe_spin *spin;
>> 	int fd;
>> 	uint32_t vm;
>> 	uint32_t bo;
>> 	uint32_t exec_queue;
>> 	uint32_t syncobj;
>> };
>>
>> I don't really like that name, but we can do a rename on top... or we can
>> rename it now and then move things.
>>
>
>could you please suggest the name in place of xe_cork

not sure... I think we can probably have:

Current		alternative1	alternative2	alternative3
xe_spin		xe_spin_bo	xe_spin		xe_spin
xe_cork		xe_spinner	xe_spin_ctx	xe_spinner

Or keep as is and let the rename to be done when everything is added. As
the original author of xe_cork, I'd wait on Matt Brost about a rename.

Lucas De Marchi