Hi Gustavo,
  a very small comment below

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:49:20PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.pado...@collabora.com>
>
> Add section to VIDIOC_QBUF and VIDIOC_QUERY_BUF about it
>
> v6:   - Close some gaps in the docs (Hans)
>
> v5:
>       - Remove V4L2_CAP_ORDERED
>       - Add doc about V4L2_FMT_FLAG_UNORDERED
>
> v4:
>       - Document ordering behavior for in-fences
>       - Document V4L2_CAP_ORDERED capability
>       - Remove doc about OUT_FENCE event
>       - Document immediate return of out-fence in QBUF
>
> v3:
>       - make the out_fence refer to the current buffer (Hans)
>       - Note what happens when the IN_FENCE is not set (Hans)
>
> v2:
>       - mention that fences are files (Hans)
>       - rework for the new API
>
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.pado...@collabora.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-qbuf.rst     | 55 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  Documentation/media/uapi/v4l/vidioc-querybuf.rst | 12 ++++--
>  2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
[snip]
> +Note the the same `fence_fd` field is used for both sending the in-fence as
> +input argument to receive the out-fence as a return argument. A buffer can
> +have both in-fence ond out-fence.

I feel like an "and" is missing here...

 the same `fence_fd` field is used for both sending the in-fence as
 input argument to receive the out-fence as a return argument

 the same `fence_fd` field is used for both sending the in-fence as
 input argument *and* to receive the out-fence as a return argument

I'm not a native speaker so I might be wrong though.

Thanks
   j

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to