From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:33743 "EHLO mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751148AbcHLJAJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 05:00:09 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id o80so1692280wme.0 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2016 02:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:44:41 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter To: Sumit Semwal Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] dma-buf/fence: kerneldoc: remove spurious section header Message-ID: <20160812084441.GR6232@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1470912480-32304-1-git-send-email-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> <1470912480-32304-3-git-send-email-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1470912480-32304-3-git-send-email-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 04:17:58PM +0530, Sumit Semwal wrote: > Commit e941759c74a44d6ac2eed21bb0a38b21fe4559e2 ("fence: dma-buf > cross-device synchronization (v18)") had a spurious kerneldoc section > header that caused Sphinx to complain. Fix it. > > Fixes: e941759c74a4 ("fence: dma-buf cross-device synchronization (v18)") > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Semwal On patches 1&2 Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter > --- > include/linux/fence.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/fence.h b/include/linux/fence.h > index 5aa95eb886f7..5de89dab0013 100644 > --- a/include/linux/fence.h > +++ b/include/linux/fence.h > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct fence_cb; > * implementer of the fence for its own purposes. Can be used in different > * ways by different fence implementers, so do not rely on this. > * > - * *) Since atomic bitops are used, this is not guaranteed to be the case. > + * Since atomic bitops are used, this is not guaranteed to be the case. > * Particularly, if the bit was set, but fence_signal was called right > * before this bit was set, it would have been able to set the > * FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, before enable_signaling was called. > -- > 2.7.4 > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch