[PATCH 04/36] drm/doc: drop struct_mutex references

[Sam Ravnborg]

Hi Emil.

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:01:25AM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi Sam,
> 
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 19:01, Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Emil.
> >
> > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 04:07:50PM +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> > > From: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>
> > >
> > > There's little point in providing partial and ancient information about
> > > the struct_mutex. Some drivers are using it, new ones should not.
> > >
> > > As-it this only provides for confusion.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov <emil.velikov at collabora.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/gpu/drm-mm.rst | 7 ++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-mm.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-mm.rst
> > > index 1839762044be..5ba2ead8f317 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-mm.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-mm.rst
> > > @@ -178,11 +178,8 @@ GEM Objects Lifetime
> > >  --------------------
> > >
> > >  All GEM objects are reference-counted by the GEM core. References can be
> > > -acquired and release by calling drm_gem_object_get() and drm_gem_object_put()
> > > -respectively. The caller must hold the :c:type:`struct drm_device <drm_device>`
> > > -struct_mutex lock when calling drm_gem_object_get(). As a convenience, GEM
> > > -provides drm_gem_object_put_unlocked() functions that can be called without
> > > -holding the lock.
> > > +acquired and release by calling drm_gem_object_get() and drm_gem_object_put_unlocked()
> > > +respectively.
> >
> > Nice to get rid of struct_mutex lock stuff.
> > But no need to s/drm_gem_object_put/drm_gem_object_put_unlocked()/ as this will
> > be renamed a bit later.
> >
> This patch fixes the documentation, for people looking it today.
> 
> While I would love to see the s/_unlocked//g part of the series land,
> it is rather invasive albeit mechanical.
> So driver maintainers are in their right to request that we push it at
> a later point.

Well, unless there is push-back within a week from one of the
maintainers then we should apply the full series at drm-misc-next.
Maybe wiht a gently ping in mid next week.

No reason to wait for individual maintaintes to pick it up
driver-by-driver. This would make such nice refactoring as this
far to hard to do especially due to the dependencies to the
first patches.

But I see your rationale for keeping it like it is.
So you can stick an
Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org>
on the rest of the patches.

	Sam