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.
Cheers,
Egbert.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
