On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 23:06 -0600, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> 2012/7/9 ykzhao <[email protected]>:
> > On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 22:28 -0600, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> >> > There is no problem when the variable of dri_state is renamed to
> >> > drm_state.
> >> > But it seems a little confusing as the patch 2 already defines the
> >> > structure type of drm_state.
> >>
> >> Both patches could be merged altogether, if this is what you suggest.
> >
> > No. What I mean is that the name seems a little confusing. And the
> > readability of ctx->drm_state is decreased as the patch 2 defines the
> > data structure of drm_state.
>
> What are you really talking about? And what's your suggestion then?
It is OK for me to rename the "dri_state" to drm_state. But to keep the
readability of "ctx->dri_state/drm_state", I suggest that the drm_state
defined in patch 2 can use another name. (For example: drm_base_state)
Thanks.
Yakui
_______________________________________________
Libva mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva
