Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2023 18:43:10 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH drm-misc-next v7 4/7] drm/gpuvm: add an abstraction for a VM / BO combination | From | Danilo Krummrich <> |
| |
On 10/31/23 17:50, Thomas Hellström wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 17:30 +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> On 10/31/23 12:45, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Thomas Hellström >>> <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >>>>> + * Returns: a pointer to the &drm_gpuvm_bo on success, NULL on >>>> >>>> Still needs s/Returns:/Return:/g >>> >>> FWIW, both work to accommodate the variance across the kernel, >>> although >>> I think only the latter is documented and recommended. It's also >>> the >>> most popular: >>> >>> 10577 Return >>> 3596 Returns >> >> I'd like to keep "Returns", since that's what GPUVM uses already >> everywhere else. > > Ok. It looks like the Returns: are converted to Return in the rendered > output so I guess that's why it's the form that is documented. > > I pointed this out since in the last review you replied you were going > to change it, and also when the code starts seeing updates from other, > it might become inconsistent if those patches follow the documented > way.
Sorry for that. I think I wrote this answer when I was at XDC and hence was a little bit distracted.
> > But I'm OK either way.
Ok, then let's just keep it as it is.
> > /Thomas > > >> >>> 1104 RETURN >>> 568 return >>> 367 returns >>> 352 RETURNS >>> 1 RETURNs >>> >>> BR, >>> Jani. >>> >>> >> >
| |