Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 function parameter 'svm_pages' not described in 'drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked'
Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 expecting prototype for drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked(). Prototype was for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() instead

Fixes: 6364afd532bc ("drm/gpusvm: refactor core API to use pages struct")
Signed-off-by: Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
index 24180bfdf5a2..93f7e594256d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
@@ -1338,9 +1338,9 @@ bool drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid(struct drm_gpusvm *gpusvm,
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid);
 
 /**
- * drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked() - GPU SVM range pages valid unlocked
+ * drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() - GPU SVM range pages valid unlocked
  * @gpusvm: Pointer to the GPU SVM structure
- * @range: Pointer to the GPU SVM range structure
+ * @svm_pages: Pointer to the GPU SVM pages structure
  *
  * This function determines if a GPU SVM range pages are valid. Expected be
  * called without holding gpusvm->notifier_lock.
-- 
2.43.0

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:00:32AM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 function parameter 'svm_pages' not described in 'drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked'
> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 expecting prototype for drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked(). Prototype was for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() instead
> 
> Fixes: 6364afd532bc ("drm/gpusvm: refactor core API to use pages struct")

I fix this one already. Believe it merged yesterday.

74b6e83942dc drm/gpusvm: Fix drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() kernel-doc

Matt

> Signed-off-by: Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
> index 24180bfdf5a2..93f7e594256d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
> @@ -1338,9 +1338,9 @@ bool drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid(struct drm_gpusvm *gpusvm,
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid);
>  
>  /**
> - * drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked() - GPU SVM range pages valid unlocked
> + * drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() - GPU SVM range pages valid unlocked
>   * @gpusvm: Pointer to the GPU SVM structure
> - * @range: Pointer to the GPU SVM range structure
> + * @svm_pages: Pointer to the GPU SVM pages structure
>   *
>   * This function determines if a GPU SVM range pages are valid. Expected be
>   * called without holding gpusvm->notifier_lock.
> -- 
> 2.43.0
>

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 07:06:25PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:00:32AM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
> > Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 function parameter 'svm_pages' not described in 'drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked'
> > Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 expecting prototype for drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked(). Prototype was for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() instead
> > 
> > Fixes: 6364afd532bc ("drm/gpusvm: refactor core API to use pages struct")
> 
> I fix this one already. Believe it merged yesterday.

Thanks. I will drop this patch and respin the series after waiting
briefly for possible comments on other patches.

Yujie

> 
> 74b6e83942dc drm/gpusvm: Fix drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() kernel-doc
> 
> Matt

On 2/26/26 06:56, Yujie Liu wrote:
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from yujie.liu@intel.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 07:06:25PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:00:32AM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
>>> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 function parameter 'svm_pages' not described in 'drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked'
>>> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 expecting prototype for drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked(). Prototype was for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() instead
>>>
>>> Fixes: 6364afd532bc ("drm/gpusvm: refactor core API to use pages struct")
>>
>> I fix this one already. Believe it merged yesterday.
> 
> Thanks. I will drop this patch and respin the series after waiting
> briefly for possible comments on other patches.

I also strongly suggest to split that patch set up by driver/subsystem and send it out individually. So that we can upstream it through different branches.

When it is send out as one patch set then that usually indicates that in needs to be applied in that order. That is clearly not the case here, but it would be nice to have it separately in my inbox.

Apart from that, thanks for taking care of that.

Christian.

> 
> Yujie
> 
>>
>> 74b6e83942dc drm/gpusvm: Fix drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() kernel-doc
>>
>> Matt

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:39:01PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 2/26/26 06:56, Yujie Liu wrote:
> > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from yujie.liu@intel.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 07:06:25PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:00:32AM +0800, Yujie Liu wrote:
> >>> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 function parameter 'svm_pages' not described in 'drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked'
> >>> Warning: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c:1351 expecting prototype for drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked(). Prototype was for drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() instead
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 6364afd532bc ("drm/gpusvm: refactor core API to use pages struct")
> >>
> >> I fix this one already. Believe it merged yesterday.
> > 
> > Thanks. I will drop this patch and respin the series after waiting
> > briefly for possible comments on other patches.
> 
> I also strongly suggest to split that patch set up by driver/subsystem and send it out individually. So that we can upstream it through different branches.
> 
> When it is send out as one patch set then that usually indicates that in needs to be applied in that order. That is clearly not the case here, but it would be nice to have it separately in my inbox.

Thank you very much for the guidance. I'll keep this in mind and
carefully follow the rules and upstream workflow.

Since patch 1 and 5 have already been fixed, and patch 4, 6, 7 have been
picked up by Alex, I'll respin to send out patch 2 and 3 individually.

Best Regards,
Yujie