[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/9] drm/i915: Use a define for the default priority [0]

[Chris Wilson]

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 10:21:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 05/05/2017 10:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:31:14AM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> >>Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:32:34PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> >>>>On ke, 2017-05-03 at 12:37 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>Explicitly assign the default priority, and give it a name (macro).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>>>
> >>>><SNIP>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 	kref_init(&ctx->ref);
> >>>>> 	list_add_tail(&ctx->link, &dev_priv->context_list);
> >>>>> 	ctx->i915 = dev_priv;
> >>>>>+	ctx->priority = I915_PRIORITY_DFL;
> >>>>
> >>>>I915_PRIORITY_DEFAULT would work better.
> >>>
> >>>On the one hand I have the symmetry with MIN, DFL, MAX, on the other
> >>>hand DFL is plain bizarre.
> >>
> >>DEF?
> >
> >I915_PRIORITY_DEFEAT. I'm perfectly happy just to 0, pesky Tvrtko.
> 
> Will to argue deflated. :) I suggested it for benefit in one of the
> later patches which explicitly compared against zero. if < 0 &&
> !cap_sys_admin or something.. I thought being explicit what zero
> means there would be a good thing.
> 
> DEFAULT or DEF both sounds good to me. Or NORMAL. DFL is not
> entirely new (SIG_DFL) but it does look very weird.

I like I915_PRIORITY_NORMAL.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre