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]

Date:   Tue, 31 Oct 2023 18:43:10 +0100
From:   Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Hellström 
        <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.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 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@...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.

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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>