Re: [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Daniel,

On 10 December 2016 at 02:45, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri,  9 Dec 2016 19:53:04 +0100
> Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Not yet everything in this area, I still want to sprinkle nice docs around all
>> the fence code. Especially some text to explain implicit vs. explicit fencing
>> and how it's all supposed to work.
>>
Thanks for the patch series; I had something in the works too, but you
beat me to it! :)

Looks good to me, so please feel free to add my
Acked-by: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@xxxxxxxxxx>

to the series.

>> But just cleanup in the dma-buf part was quite a bit of work, and I'd like to
>> get feedback on that before moving on.
>
> No complaints here - except that I had to go looking around to find this
> 0/5 posting explaining what the overall goal was...:)
>
> It seems like just the sort of thing we want to be doing to pull the docs
> together in a more rational way.
>
> jon

Best regards,
Sumit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux