Noralf Trønnes writes: > Den 16.08.2017 22.39, skrev Laurent Pinchart: >> Hi Noralf, >> >> On Wednesday 16 Aug 2017 21:52:02 Noralf Trønnes wrote: >>> Den 16.08.2017 19.24, skrev Eric Anholt: >>>> Noralf Trønnes writes: >>>>> This library provides helpers for drivers that don't subclass >>>>> drm_framebuffer and are backed by drm_gem_object. The code is >>>>> taken from drm_fb_cma_helper. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Noralf Trønnes >>>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter >>>>> --- >>>>> +/** >>>>> + * drm_gem_fb_destroy - Free GEM backed framebuffer >>>>> + * @fb: DRM framebuffer >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Frees a GEM backed framebuffer with it's backing buffer(s) and the >>>>> structure >>>> grammar nit: "its" >>>> >>>> Other than that, >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt >>> Thanks, applied to drm-misc. >> The patches were posted on Sunday. If you don't give at least a week to >> reviewers, I don't think they will keep bothering. I certainly won't. > > Hi Laurent, > > I actually didn't think there was much interest in this patchset since > the first version of the patcheset was sent 31/7. Daniel gave me his rb > if I fixed the docs a week ago. Instead of applying it directly I sent > a new version to give Eric a chance to look at it since he showed > interest in an rfc. So when I got his rb, I just applied. > > All that being said, I do appreciate reviews since that improves the work. > I will adapt to waiting a week if that's what's expected. > > Sorry about the let down. For what it's worth, I think the speed of merging was entirely appropriate in this case. It had been a week since the previous version, that got no replies except for danvet's. You're effectively just moving code and renaming some functions, and danvet and I had both replied positively. As far as concerns about whether everyone gets to give their feedback go, my stance is: The great thing about git is that you can make changes to code even after a patch goes in.