From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm/gpusvm: Fix drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() kernel-doc Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2026 06:29:02 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260219205029.1011336-1-matthew.brost@intel.com> References: <20260219205029.1011336-1-matthew.brost@intel.com> <20260219205029.1011336-1-matthew.brost@intel.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review Documentation-only fix, no issues with correctness. > - * drm_gpusvm_range_pages_valid_unlocked() - GPU SVM range pages valid u= nlocked > + * drm_gpusvm_pages_valid_unlocked() - GPU SVM pages valid unlocked Correctly matches the actual function name. > - * @range: Pointer to the GPU SVM range structure > + * @svm_pages: Pointer to the GPU SVM pages structure Correctly matches the actual parameter name and type (`struct drm_gpusvm_pa= ges *svm_pages`). > + * This function determines if a GPU SVM pages are valid. Expected be ca= lled Minor: the grammar "if a GPU SVM pages are valid" reads awkwardly =E2=80=94= "if GPU SVM pages are valid" (dropping the article "a") would be more natu= ral. Similarly, "Expected be called" is missing "to" =E2=80=94 should be "E= xpected to be called." These were pre-existing issues in the old text ("if = a GPU SVM range pages are valid") so this patch isn't making things worse, = but since the lines are being touched anyway it would be a good opportunity= to clean up the grammar. Otherwise, the patch is correct and does what the commit message says. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer