On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, Egbert Eich <e...@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.
Egbert, I'm full of shit. Sorry. $BEVERAGE on me next time. I'll queue these once I figure out through which tree. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
