Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2019-07-10 13:36:25)
> Need for this was identified while working on split of driver unbind
> path into _remove() and _release() parts. Consistency in function
> naming has been recognized as helpful when trying to work out which
> phase the code is in.
>
> What I'm still not sure about is desired depth of that modification -
> how deep should we go down with renaming to not override meaningfull
> function names. Please advise if you think still more deep renaming
> makes sense.
I did a double take over "driver_release" but by the end I was in
agreement.
The early_release though, that is worth a bit of artistic license to say
early_probe pairs with late_release.
-Chris
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 2:47:08 PM CEST Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2019-07-10 13:36:25)
> > Need for this was identified while working on split of driver unbind
> > path into _remove() and _release() parts. Consistency in function
> > naming has been recognized as helpful when trying to work out which
> > phase the code is in.
> >
> > What I'm still not sure about is desired depth of that modification -
> > how deep should we go down with renaming to not override meaningfull
> > function names. Please advise if you think still more deep renaming
> > makes sense.
>
> I did a double take over "driver_release" but by the end I was in
> agreement.
>
> The early_release though, that is worth a bit of artistic license to say
> early_probe pairs with late_release.
OK, I'll fix it, as well as other issues pointed out by dim, and resubmit.
Thanks,
Janusz
> -Chris
>