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 <ch...@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 <ch...@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 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
