On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 17:25 -0700, Harrison, John C wrote:
> On 9/21/2022 10:32, Alan Previn wrote:
> > @@ -208,6 +210,11 @@ struct intel_context {
> > * each priority bucket
> > */
> > u32 prio_count[GUC_CLIENT_PRIORITY_NUM];
> > + /**
> > + * @sched_disable_delay: worker to disable scheduling on this
> > + * context
> > + */
> > + struct delayed_work sched_disable_delay;
> Nit: this confuses me every time that it looks like the delay timeout
> rather than the worker object. It would be much easier to read the code
> if it was 'sched_disable_delay_work', although that is quite the
> mouthful. Maybe just call all three variables disable_delay_XXX?
I agree with you - I've modified this patch many times and realize I
prefer something self-explanatory even if its a mouthful.
Will stick with your first proposal "sched_disable_delay_work"
>
> > - if (unlikely(!context_enabled(ce) || submission_disabled(guc) ||
> > - context_has_committed_requests(ce))) {
> This function no longer has any callers so can be removed completely.
>
Will do.
> Otherwise, it looks good to me.
>
> John.
>
>
