On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:22 PM, Andres Rodriguez <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2018-01-17 08:01 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>
>> On 04.01.2018 18:37, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-01-04 12:33 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is the renaming necessary? It looks like everything would be fine if
>>>> we used the "fence" name for semaphores.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The rename was requested by nha. We could keep going with the fences
>>> name. Or we could do the whole rename afterwards. I'm fine with either
>>> approach.
>>
>>
>> Still digging through emails, but Marek pointed this out specifically.
>>
>> It's been a while, but this may have been a misunderstanding. Perhaps you
>> were referring to my mail to your first series about semaphores ("Add
>> support for GL_EXT_semaphore") in early November. What I meant to request is
>> that we use the same object for both fences and semaphores, and that object
>> would have behavior closer to semaphores (since they're kind of a superset
>> in terms of behavior). I didn't mean to say that they should necessarily be
>> renamed. My apologies for not making that clear.
>>
>> So I was actually expecting to keep the fence name, there's some benefit
>> to having less churn.
>
>
> That works for me. Also, welcome back :)
>
> Consider this patch dropped and s/semaphore/fence for the rest of the
> series.I quickly skimmed through the series and it looks good to me. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
