Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm/gpusvm: fix kernel-doc warning for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked()

[Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:39:01PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 2/26/26 06:56, Yujie Liu wrote:
> > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from yujie.liu@intel.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 07:06:25PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:00:32AM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
> >>> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 function parameter 'svm_pages' not described in 'drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked'
> >>> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 expecting prototype for drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked(). Prototype was for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() instead
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 6364afd532bc ("drm/gpusvm: refactor core API to use pages struct")
> >>
> >> I fix this one already. Believe it merged yesterday.
> > 
> > Thanks. I will drop this patch and respin the series after waiting
> > briefly for possible comments on other patches.
> 
> I also strongly suggest to split that patch set up by driver/subsystem and send it out individually. So that we can upstream it through different branches.
> 
> When it is send out as one patch set then that usually indicates that in needs to be applied in that order. That is clearly not the case here, but it would be nice to have it separately in my inbox.

Thank you very much for the guidance. I'll keep this in mind and
carefully follow the rules and upstream workflow.

Since patch 1 and 5 have already been fixed, and patch 4, 6, 7 have been
picked up by Alex, I'll respin to send out patch 2 and 3 individually.

Best Regards,
Yujie