[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/50] drm/i915: s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:17:23PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lespiau, Damien
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:26 PM
> > To: Daniel Vetter
> > Cc: Mateo Lozano, Oscar; intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/50] drm/i915:
> > s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine
> > 
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:08:36PM +0100, oscar.mateo at intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > In the upcoming patches, we plan to break the correlation between
> > > > engines (a.k.a. rings) and ringbuffers, so it makes sense to
> > > > refactor the code and make the change obvious.
> > > >
> > > > No functional changes.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
> > >
> > > If we rename stuff I'd vote for something close to Bspec language,
> > > like CS. So maybe intel_cs_engine?
> 
> Bikeshedding much, are we? :)
> If we want to get closer to bspecish, intel_engine_cs would be better.

I'm ok with that too ;-)

> > Also, can we have such patches (and the like of "drm/i915:
> > for_each_ring") pushed early when everyone is happy with them, they cause
> > constant rebasing pain.
> 
> I second that motion!

Fully agreed - as soon as we have a rough sketch of where we want to go to
I'll pull in the rename. Aside I highly suggest to do the rename with
coccinelle and regerate it on rebases - that's much less error-prone than
doing it by hand.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch