Keith Packard wrote: > commit 32acf53eefa64cd41cc9bf45705b0825fc8a0eef > Author: Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun Dec 16 20:16:50 2007 -0800 > > Rename inappropriately named 'mask' fields to 'proposed_flags' instead. > > Flags pending validation were stored in a misleadingly named field, > 'mask'. > As 'mask' is already used to indicate pieces of a flags field which are > changing, it seems better to use a name reflecting the actual purpose of > this field. I chose 'proposed_flags' as they may not actually end up in > 'flags', and in an case will be modified when they are moved over. > > This affects the API, but not ABI of the user-mode interface. >
Keith, I think this makes sense too. I'm hopeful Thomas would agree. > +/* > + * drm_bo_propose_flags: > + * > + * @bo: the buffer object getting new flags > + * > + * @new_flags: the new set of proposed flag bits > + * > + * @new_mask: the mask of bits changed in new_flags > + * > + * Modify the proposed_flag bits in @bo > + */ Looks like this comment has already started to drift from the function it is documenting?? > +static int drm_bo_modify_proposed_flags (struct drm_buffer_object *bo, > + uint64_t new_flags, uint64_t new_mask) Keith ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
