From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: Documentation: drm: Remove drm_atomic_state rename entry Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 07:41:18 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260331-drm-drm-atomic-update-v2-2-7e8fe6ddcd32@kernel.org> References: <20260331-drm-drm-atomic-update-v2-0-7e8fe6ddcd32@kernel.org> <20260331-drm-drm-atomic-update-v2-2-7e8fe6ddcd32@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review This patch is straightforward and correct. It removes the completed TODO it= em. **One issue in the removed text:** The diff shows the removed section as it= would appear after patch 1 has been applied. In the removed text: ``` -``drm_atomic_commit`` should be renamed to something clearer like -``drm_atomic_commit``. ``` This line (after patch 1's rename) says "drm_atomic_commit should be rename= d to something clearer like drm_atomic_commit" =E2=80=94 which is self-refe= rential/nonsensical. This is expected since patch 1 blindly renamed all occ= urrences including in this TODO paragraph, and patch 2 removes it entirely,= so no one would actually read this intermediate state. But it does confirm= patch 1 performed a purely mechanical find-and-replace without special-cas= ing this documentation paragraph. That's fine since the text is immediately= deleted. **The patch itself is clean** =E2=80=94 a simple removal of 23 lines betwee= n two well-defined section boundaries. No issues. **Overall verdict:** The series is a welcome cleanup that's been on the TOD= O list for a long time. The main risk is merge conflicts due to the massive= scope. The naming collision between struct `drm_atomic_commit` and functio= n `drm_atomic_commit()` is worth discussing but is not a blocker. Recommend= merging early in the cycle through drm-next as proposed. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer