linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH drm-misc-next v7 4/7] drm/gpuvm: add an abstraction for a VM / BO combination

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6cf7459aa0332d6fc3c4764f66a83c6a3825348f.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:50:41 +0100
From:   Thomas Hellström 
        <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, airlied@...il.com,
        daniel@...ll.ch, matthew.brost@...el.com, sarah.walker@...tec.com,
        donald.robson@...tec.com, boris.brezillon@...labora.com,
        christian.koenig@....com, faith@...strand.net
Cc:     nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH drm-misc-next v7 4/7] drm/gpuvm: add an abstraction for
 a VM / BO combination

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@...ux.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.

But I'm OK either way.

/Thomas


> 
> >     1104 RETURN
> >      568 return
> >      367 returns
> >      352 RETURNS
> >        1 RETURNs
> > 
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> > 
> > 
>