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

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

 



On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:15 PM, 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.
>>
>> 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.

Ok if we pull this in through gfx trees? Will miss 4.10 though, that's
already finished and in bugfix-only mode.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
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