Re: [PATCH] Rename inappropriately named 'mask' fields to 'proposed_flags' instead.

[<th...@tu...>]

Keith Packard wrote:

>On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 21:28 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Keith, I think this makes sense too.  I'm hopeful Thomas would agree.
>>    
>>

>
>I'll wait and see what he thinks before pushing then.
>  
>
It's perfectly OK with me.
/Thomas


>  
>
>>>+/*
>>>+ * drm_bo_propose_flags:
>>>+ *
>>>+ * @bo: the buffer object getting new flags
>>>+ *
>>>+ * @new_flags: the new set of proposed flag bits
>>>+ *
>>>+ * @new_mask: the mask of bits changed in new_flags
>>>+ *
>>>+ * Modify the proposed_flag bits in @bo
>>>+ */
>>>      
>>>
>>Looks like this comment has already started to drift from the function 
>>it is documenting??
>>    
>>
>
>Oops. Good catch -- I briefly considered using the shorter name, but
>decided that matching the field name was more important.
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
>It's the best place to buy or sell services
>for just about anything Open Source.
>http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>Dri-devel mailing list
>Dri...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
>  
>