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: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:55:34 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260427-drm-drm-atomic-update-v4-2-c0e713bfdf25@kernel.org> References: <20260427-drm-drm-atomic-update-v4-0-c0e713bfdf25@kernel.org> <20260427-drm-drm-atomic-update-v4-2-c0e713bfdf25@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 **Status: Looks correct.** This patch removes the 23-line todo entry from `Documentation/gpu/todo.rst`= that described the `drm_atomic_state` rename task, since patch 1/2 just co= mpleted it. The diff is clean =E2=80=94 it removes exactly the "Rename drm_atomic_commi= t" section (which at this point in the series has already been mechanically= renamed by patch 1/2 from its original "Rename drm_atomic_state" title). T= he context lines show the surrounding sections ("Level: Advanced" above, "F= allout from atomic KMS" below) are untouched. One observation about the intermediate state after patch 1/2 but before thi= s patch: the todo text would read: ``` ``drm_atomic_commit`` should be renamed to something clearer like ``drm_atomic_commit``. ``` This is nonsensical (recommending renaming something to itself), which is a= n expected artifact of the mechanical rename in patch 1. Patch 2 immediatel= y cleans this up, so the intermediate state is only visible in `git log` bu= t never in a released kernel. This is fine, though squashing patch 2 into p= atch 1 would have avoided the nonsensical intermediate commit. That said, k= eeping them separate is a reasonable editorial choice since it makes the me= chanical rename easier to audit. Tags present: Reviewed-by (Luca Ceresoli), Acked-by (Jani Nikula), Signed-o= ff-by (Maxime Ripard). No issues. **Verdict: Patch 2/2 is straightforward and correct. Patch 1/2 cannot be re= viewed because it's missing from the mbox. The series should be re-submitte= d or the mbox re-fetched to include patch 1/2 for a complete review.** --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer