Nouveau - Oct 2023 - [PATCH drm-misc-next v7 4/7] drm/gpuvm: add an abstraction for a VM / BO combination

On 10/31/23 12:45, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Thomas Hellstr?m <thomas.hellstrom at
linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> + * Returns: a pointer to the &drm_gpuvm_bo on success, NULL on
>>
>> Still needs s/Returns:/Return:/g
> 
> FWIW, both work to accommodate the variance across the kernel, although
> I think only the latter is documented and recommended. It's also the
> most popular:
> 
>    10577 Return
>     3596 Returns
I'd like to keep "Returns", since that's what GPUVM uses
already everywhere else.
>     1104 RETURN
>      568 return
>      367 returns
>      352 RETURNS
>        1 RETURNs
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
>

On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 17:30 +0100, Danilo Krummrich
wrote:
> On 10/31/23 12:45, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Thomas Hellstr?m
> > <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> > > > + * Returns: a pointer to the &drm_gpuvm_bo on success,
NULL on
> > > 
> > > Still needs s/Returns:/Return:/g
> > 
> > FWIW, both work to accommodate the variance across the kernel,
> > although
> > I think only the latter is documented and recommended. It's also
> > the
> > most popular:
> > 
> > ?? 10577 Return
> > ??? 3596 Returns
> 
> I'd like to keep "Returns", since that's what GPUVM uses
already
> everywhere else.
Ok. It looks like the Returns: are converted to Return in the rendered
output so I guess that's why it's the form that is documented.

I pointed this out since in the last review you replied you were going
to change it, and also when the code starts seeing updates from other,
it might become inconsistent if those patches follow the documented
way.

But I'm OK either way.

/Thomas

> 
> > ??? 1104 RETURN
> > ???? 568 return
> > ???? 367 returns
> > ???? 352 RETURNS
> > ?????? 1 RETURNs
> > 
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> > 
> > 
>