Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
To:     Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
From:   Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20190710123631.26575-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        =?utf-8?q?Micha=C5=82_Wajdeczko?= <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190710123631.26575-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <156276282845.11940.4812142560907762693@skylake-alporthouse-com>
User-Agent: alot/0.6
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Rename functions to match their entry points
Date:   Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:47:08 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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