+ 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 Intelfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx