Hi, 2012/7/9 ykzhao <[email protected]>: > 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)
I am sorry but I still don't see your point and how this affects readability. drm_state is the base class for dri_state, which is a DRI-authenticated drm_state + data for its housekeeping. It's pretty clear already. Your suggestion actually decreases readability when it comes to the VA/DRM case whereby you don't care of extra data, so the base drm_state is already sufficient. _______________________________________________ Libva mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libva
