Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        Hunter Chasens <hunter.chasens18@ncf.edu>
Cc:     Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>, airlied@gmail.com,
        daniel@ffwll.ch, maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com,
        mripard@kernel.org, tzimmermann@suse.de,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] docs: gpu: rfc: i915_scheduler.rst remove unused
 directives for namespacing
In-Reply-To: <87edh2zn2y.fsf@intel.com>
References: <20231104134708.69432-1-hunter.chasens18@ncf.edu>
 <ZUhvj2uj_PvaDxIM@debian.me> <8734xj18ck.fsf@intel.com>
 <CAFJe6O1oJnQvLVSJZP6MMXULGrX=a3SEO1X5b4xff06WhqLw_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <87edh2zn2y.fsf@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 06 Nov 2023 12:49:05 -0700
Message-ID: <871qd24q8e.fsf@meer.lwn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> writes:

> Looks like this is because namespacing was introduced in Sphinx 3.1
> [1]. With earlier Sphinx, you get a warning about the namespace
> directives.
>
> However, with newer Sphinx, you get the warning mentioned in commit
> f6757dfcfde7 ("drm/doc: fix duplicate declaration warning") if you
> remove the namespace directives:
>
> linux/Documentation/gpu/driver-uapi.rst:2279: WARNING: Duplicate C declaration, also defined at rfc/i915_scheduler:3.
> Declaration is '.. c:struct:: i915_context_engines_parallel_submit'.
>
> It would be short-sighted to just remove the directives. Sooner or later
> we're gong to bump the (IMO extremely conservative) minimum version
> requirement.

I'd say let's just do that once the merge window is done.  A year ago
(in 31abfdda6527) I added a warning for <2.4.x, so raising the minimum
that far would appear to require no thought.  Going up to 3.1 is a step
beyond that, though, not sure if we want to go that far.

Something to ask at the LPC session next week.

Thanks,

jon