[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/31] drm/i915: Remove stray intel_engine_cs ring identifiers from i915_gem.c

[Chris Wilson]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:45:42AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ma, 2016-07-25 at 08:44 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > A few places we use ring when referring to the struct intel_engine_cs. An
> > anachronism we are pruning out.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index e155e8dd28ed..7bfce1d5c61b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static void i915_gem_object_flush_cpu_write_domain(struct drm_i915_gem_object *o
> >  static void
> >  i915_gem_object_retire__write(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
> >  static void
> > -i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int ring);
> > +i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int engine);
> >  
> >  static bool cpu_cache_is_coherent(struct drm_device *dev,
> >  				  enum i915_cache_level level)
> > @@ -1385,10 +1385,10 @@ static void
> >  i915_gem_object_retire_request(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> >  			       struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> >  {
> > -	int ring = req->engine->id;
> > +	int idx = req->engine->id;
> 
> See below.
> 
> >  
> > -	if (obj->last_read_req[ring] == req)
> > -		i915_gem_object_retire__read(obj, ring);
> > +	if (obj->last_read_req[idx] == req)
> > +		i915_gem_object_retire__read(obj, idx);
> >  	else if (obj->last_write_req == req)
> >  		i915_gem_object_retire__write(obj);
> >  
> > @@ -2381,20 +2381,20 @@ i915_gem_object_retire__write(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void
> > -i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int ring)
> > +i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int idx)
> 
> I do not fancy declaring different variable names than are used. Also,
> idx is very cryptic in this function signature (one would think of
> object index).

If you look at the later patches (posted earlier ;) using index is the
less cryptic option as it really does refer to the index of the tracker.

There was a desired to avoid using ring and here I was trying to avoid
confusion with activity tracking.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre