Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/error: standardize function style in error capture

Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-03-03 09:54:02) > Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-03-02 20:07:54) > > On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:19:29 +0100, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio > > wrote: > > > > > some of the static functions used from capture() have the "i915_" > > > prefix while

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/error: standardize function style in error capture

Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2018-03-02 20:07:54) > On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:19:29 +0100, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio > wrote: > > > some of the static functions used from capture() have the "i915_" > > prefix while other don't; most of them take i915 as a parameter, but

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/error: standardize function style in error capture

On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 20:19:29 +0100, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote: some of the static functions used from capture() have the "i915_" prefix while other don't; most of them take i915 as a parameter, but one of them derives it internally from error->i915. Let's

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/error: standardize function style in error capture

some of the static functions used from capture() have the "i915_" prefix while other don't; most of them take i915 as a parameter, but one of them derives it internally from error->i915. Let's be consistent by avoiding prefix for static functions and always providing i915 as a parameter.