+ Jani for Sphinx

Quoting Rogovin, Kevin (2018-04-03 17:34:49)
> I am somewhat tempted to just drop this patch or add more documentation. The 
> function pointers are used in the code common
> to the legacy way and LRC way of submitting batchbuffers to the GPU, so they 
> should have somekind of contract to what they are
> supposed to do... but spelling out that contract might be a bit much...
> 
> Opinions?

No big feelings to either direction, you could add a documentation block
for the flow nearby.

If the struct members are referred to from documentation blocks, how far
are we from generating warnings if a patch renames something that
becomes non-existent in .rst or documentation block? (this one for Jani)

Regards, Joonas

> 
>  -Kevin
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to