From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sumit Semwal Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 17:42:53 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20161209185309.1682-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20161209141514.505b018f@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161209141514.505b018f@lwn.net> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development , DRI Development , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Hi Daniel, On 10 December 2016 at 02:45, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:53:04 +0100 > Daniel Vetter 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 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.