linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] docs: gpu: rfc: i915_scheduler.rst remove unused directives for namespacing

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: <871qd24q8e.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
Date:   Mon, 06 Nov 2023 12:49:05 -0700
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Hunter Chasens <hunter.chasens18@....edu>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>, airlied@...il.com,
        daniel@...ll.ch, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
        mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: gpu: rfc: i915_scheduler.rst remove unused
 directives for namespacing

Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> writes:

> Looks like this is because namespacing was introduced in Sphinx 3.1
> [1]. With earlier Sphinx, you get a warning about the namespace
> directives.
>
> However, with newer Sphinx, you get the warning mentioned in commit
> f6757dfcfde7 ("drm/doc: fix duplicate declaration warning") if you
> remove the namespace directives:
>
> linux/Documentation/gpu/driver-uapi.rst:2279: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at rfc/i915_scheduler:3.
> Declaration is '.. c:struct:: i915_context_engines_parallel_submit'.
>
> It would be short-sighted to just remove the directives. Sooner or later
> we're gong to bump the (IMO extremely conservative) minimum version
> requirement.

I'd say let's just do that once the merge window is done.  A year ago
(in 31abfdda6527) I added a warning for <2.4.x, so raising the minimum
that far would appear to require no thought.  Going up to 3.1 is a step
beyond that, though, not sure if we want to go that far.

Something to ask at the LPC session next week.

Thanks,

jon