Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

Thanks Jonathan! On 12 December 2016 at 01:14, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:35:42 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > Here's a thought, though: how about if we slip in a little version of >> > dma-buf.rst now with a "coming soon, don't

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:35:42 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Here's a thought, though: how about if we slip in a little version of > > dma-buf.rst now with a "coming soon, don't miss it!!" message? Then the > > rest of the set could go through your tree without touching >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:35:49 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> > It seems like just the sort of thing we want to be doing to pull the docs >> > together in a more rational way. >> >> Ok if we pull

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:35:49 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > > It seems like just the sort of thing we want to be doing to pull the docs > > together in a more rational way. > > Ok if we pull this in through gfx trees? Will miss 4.10 though, that's > already finished and

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:53:04 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> Not yet everything in this area, I still want to sprinkle nice docs around >> all >> the fence code. Especially some text to explain

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

Hi Daniel, On 10 December 2016 at 02:45, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:53:04 +0100 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> Not yet everything in this area, I still want to sprinkle nice docs around >> all >> the fence code. Especially some text to

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 19:53:04 +0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > Not yet everything in this area, I still want to sprinkle nice docs around all > the fence code. Especially some text to explain implicit vs. explicit fencing > and how it's all supposed to work. > > But just

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] sphinxification for dma-buf docs

Hi all, Not yet everything in this area, I still want to sprinkle nice docs around all the fence code. Especially some text to explain implicit vs. explicit fencing and how it's all supposed to work. But just cleanup in the dma-buf part was quite a bit of work, and I'd like to get feedback on