From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S965751AbcIWKiP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:38:15 -0400
Received: from pegasos-out.vodafone.de ([80.84.1.38]:42390 "EHLO
        pegasos-out.vodafone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S965277AbcIWKiN (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:38:13 -0400
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.045
Authentication-Results: rohrpostix2.prod.vfnet.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass
        header.i=@vodafone.de
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.8 pegasos-out.vodafone.de 5D2A8600024
Subject: Re: GPU-DRM-TTM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <4d34446f-05ad-c3ce-5d33-8fb4f25af25c@users.sourceforge.net>
 <f079ffc1-042c-0332-98e1-5acc6589e4b6@vodafone.de>
 <05418fb1-ad66-aba3-bd8c-f6b684a83279@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@gmail.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <deathsimple@vodafone.de>
Message-ID: <f0172ebe-9036-0e11-42c8-1e1230b01e5c@vodafone.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:38:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <05418fb1-ad66-aba3-bd8c-f6b684a83279@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Am 23.09.2016 um 12:20 schrieb SF Markus Elfring:
>> Additional to that I don't really see the point in renaming some of the jump labels,
> I am suggesting changes for another collateral software evolution.
>
>
>> if you call it "restart" or "lock_restart" doesn't make much difference.
> Do other identifiers fit better to a specification from the document "CodingStyle"
> like the following?

No, not really.

>
> "…
> Choose label names which say what the goto does or why the goto exists.
> …"
>
>
> Does this wording need any more adjustments?

Of hand I can't find any better wording.

It's just the names like "out" or "restart" perfectly explain why the 
labels exists. So they fulfill this requirement from the coding style as 
far as I can see.

So why do you want to change them?

Regards,
Christian.

>
> Regards,
> Markus