[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: Add a non-locking version of drm_kms_helper_poll_enable(), v2

[Jani Nikula]

On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Egbert Eich <eich at suse.com> wrote:
> Jani Nikula writes:
>  > 
>  > Shouldn't this be _unlocked?
>  > 
>  > I thought the convention was that functions that do not acquire locks
>  > are called _unlocked (although they may require a lock to be held when
>  > called). And you might have foo() that grabs locks around a call to
>  > foo_unlocked().
>  > 
>
> Looking into this, functions that are to be called in a context where
> the lock is already held should receive the suffix _locked while
> those which do locking themselves and thus need to be called from
> a context that doesn't hold this lock already receive the suffix 
> _unlocked: the past tense refers to what has happened before.

I'm afraid existing conventions trump what makes sense.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center