On 4/16/24 2:02 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
>
> On 4/16/24 2:00 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>> Hi Randy,
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> Do you see differences in the generated html for these changes?
>>
>> I have not yet generated the HTML locally to test this patch, but will
>> surely do
>> if that's a requi
On 4/16/24 2:00 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> [..]
>
>> Do you see differences in the generated html for these changes?
>
> I have not yet generated the HTML locally to test this patch, but will surely
> do
> if that's a requirement.
>
>> "&struct somestruct" and "&somestruct" s
Hi Randy,
[..]
> Do you see differences in the generated html for these changes?
I have not yet generated the HTML locally to test this patch, but will surely do
if that's a requirement.
> "&struct somestruct" and "&somestruct" should both be OK AFAIK, although
> Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-
Hi,
On 4/16/24 12:29 PM, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> Browsing the DRM documentation shows that drm_crtc_state.no_vblank
> is not turned into a reference to the no_vblank field, but rather a
> reference to `struct drm_crtc_state`. The only difference with other
> field references is that the struct na
Browsing the DRM documentation shows that drm_crtc_state.no_vblank
is not turned into a reference to the no_vblank field, but rather a
reference to `struct drm_crtc_state`. The only difference with other
field references is that the struct name is prefixed by the literal
`struct` tag, despite also
