[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/51] drm: add managed resources tied to drm_device

[Jani Nikula]

On Sat, 29 Feb 2020, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:17 PM Sam Ravnborg <sam at ravnborg.org> wrote:
>> The header-check infrastructure was dropped again - see:
>> fcbb8461fd2376ba3782b5b8bd440c929b8e4980
>
> Uh I'm disappoint :-/

To say the least. I thought it was a good *opt-in* feature for whoever
wanted it. But the part that got the backlash was applying it to
absolutely everything under include/. And then it got removed
altogether. From one extreme to the other. Nuts.

> Adding Jani in case he missed this too. I guess maybe we should
> resurrect it for drm again (and with a file pattern starting in a
> .dot).

We have a local implementation in i915/Makefile again. It uses 'find' to
find the headers which is fine in i915, but the parameters need to be
adjusted for drm to not be recursive. -maxdepth 1 or something. Also
need to add another local config option. Sad trombone.

>> > > > +     /**
>> > > > +      * @managed:
>> > > > +      *
>> > > > +      * Managed resources linked to the lifetime of this &drm_device as
>> > > > +      * tracked by @ref.
>> > > > +      */
>> > > > +     struct {
>> > > > +             struct list_head resources;
>> > > > +             void *final_kfree;
>> > > > +             spinlock_t lock;
>> > > > +     } managed;
>> > >
>> > > I am missing kernel-doc here.
>> > > At least document that lock is used to guard access to resources.
>> > > (s/lock/lock_resources/ ?)
>> >
>> > Dunno why, but the support for name sub-structures seems to have
>> > broken in kerneldoc. So I can type it, but it's not showing up, so I
>> > didn't bother. Well I had it, but deleted it again. It's still
>> > documented to work, but I have no idea what I'm doing wrong.
>>
>> Most readers prefer the .c files as the source.
>> I personally read the generated kernel doc when I google
>> and when I check that my own stuff looks good in kernel-doc format.
>> So comments are still valueable despite not being picked up by
>> kernel-doc.
>> You know this - but I just wanted to encourage you to write the few
>> lines that may help me and others :-)
>
> Hm I thought way back this actually worked. Again ping for Jani, he's
> better on top of what's happening in kernel-doc land.

I haven't really been all that active lately, but I think the syntax
here would be e.g. "@managed.resources:".

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center