[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915/guc: Update name and prototype of GuC submission related functions

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-14 19:47:05)
> 
> 
> On 11/15/2017 1:01 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2017-11-14 19:23:24)
> >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:27:26 +0100, Chris Wilson
> >> <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-11-14 18:19:01)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/14/2017 5:53 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:48:11 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
> >>>>> <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> -static void i915_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> >>>>>> +static void intel_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> >>>>> and verbose "guc_submission_handler()" ?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Yes. Should we rename irq_tasklet to submission_tasklet?
> >>>> then we can s/intel_lrc_irq_handler/execlists_submission_tasklet and
> >>>> s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet.
> >>>> Again trying to maintain the nomenclature consistency for Execlists and
> >>>> GuC.
> >>> Ok. Do that as a separate (initial) step.
> >> Hmm. By "tasklet" I usually think of "tasklet_struct". Then
> >> "guc_submission_tasklet" suggests that this is another kind
> >> or customized "tasklet" struct. So maybe use full name:
> >>
> >> s/i915_guc_irq_handler/guc_submission_tasklet_func ?
> > Please no. You'll grow to dislike the tautology immensely!
> >
> > struct tasklet tasklet;
> >
> > execlists->tasklet = execlists_submission_tasklet;
> You meant "execlists->tasklet.func =" here right?
> > execlists->tasklet = guc_submission_tasklet;
> >
> > tasklet_schedule(engine->execlists.tasklet) etc
> >
> > is clear to me.
> > -Chris
> Michal wanted to distinguish tasklet func from tasklet.

I don't see the point as I don't find any confusion between a struct and
a function. The tasklet is the function; struct tasklet is
merely its integration to softirq.
-Chris