[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 07/12] drm/i915: Rename request->ringbuf to request->ring

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 24/11/15 15:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 03:08:09PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 20/11/15 12:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Now that we have disambuigated ring and engine, we can use the clearer
>>> and more consistent name for the intel_ringbuffer pointer in the
>>> request.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h            |   2 +-
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c            |  28 +++---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c    |   2 +-
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c |   4 +-
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c        |   6 +-
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c       |  10 +-
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c           | 149 ++++++++++++++---------------
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_mocs.c          |  32 +++----
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c       |  42 ++++----
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c    |  86 ++++++++---------
>>>   10 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 183 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>> index 9ce8b3fcb3a0..b7eaa2deb437 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
>>> @@ -2185,7 +2185,7 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_request {
>>>   	 * context.
>>>   	 */
>>>   	struct intel_context *ctx;
>>> -	struct intel_ringbuffer *ringbuf;
>>> +	struct intel_ringbuffer *ring;
>>
>> What was the problem with ringbuf? Struct is still called ringbuf
>> and the files as well after the patch series.
>
> It introduced a major naming clash with existing code. I am trying to
> remove the needlessly duplicated interfaces, and restore the historic
> naming conventions.

Ok my point was that I am not sure if it is worth renaming things a) 
partially, and b) that ring is a good name for intel_ringbuffer. Ringbuf 
sounds at least just as good, in fact better to me. So this renaming 
feels like unnecessary churn. And the fact you don't even do all of them 
in the patch series just reinforces that.

But as Daniel already approved this it doesn't really matter apart for 
"for the record".

Regards,

Tvrtko