From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F769CA0EF8 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA78A10E98B; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:55:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="vEYLpKmo"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from tor.source.kernel.org (tor.source.kernel.org [172.105.4.254]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98E9510E985; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:55:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB1661154; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F4077C4CEEB; Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:55:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1755780909; bh=uOEZ+WrgBeI7diT8YOQYePsMVi/6BPeIL2bBCWmNYcY=; h=Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=vEYLpKmoWuEWj4x+UO6eLhoLe6ayPI7gxh5eZgjn4Lj8c7VP4lIsOS3bb8SWkfota jdEUL4lxtgGLNal82QTk8c882/lm5dJVyKQtWNiooof3MHsHlUzij7Ptkb0z0fKZ4p 1jXY0nnQhwcHmIAlhU4FHXRn2iS6tTMJxaD483uo6ELEAqBalK4U52E4ErZepoJAiI /S0IAOCCqqq9PddHhwYIbs5UelzjB9ZIDVDbcF8dUMWXgfsdzP6d+27qGUEFnNAZrR 55RJFnUC1iG68Srx17RAiD/ywqQcn9VxlWzb5+tjVMXJ0nFreHu3lsvnEPk+DacjPz ODzYPiKN9u52Q== Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:55:06 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/gpuvm: Rename 'map' to 'op' in drm_gpuvm_map_req Cc: "Himal Prasad Ghimiray" , , "Boris Brezillon" , "Matt Coster" , "Rob Clark" , "Matthew Brost" , To: "Boris Brezillon" From: "Danilo Krummrich" References: <20250820152335.2899501-1-himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com> <20250820180742.20623521@fedora> <20250821130146.471cd653@fedora> <20250821132535.0424d0b4@fedora> In-Reply-To: <20250821132535.0424d0b4@fedora> X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM CEST, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:01:46 +0200 > Boris Brezillon wrote: >> On a second thought, I'm now wondering why we need drm_gpuvm_map_req in >> the first place. It would kinda make sense if it was containing an >>=20 >> bool madvise; >>=20 >> field, so you don't have to pass it around, but even then, I'm >> wondering if we wouldn't be better off adding this field to >> drm_gpuva_op_map instead and passing an drm_gpuva_op_map object to >> the various map helpers (like Danilo suggested in his review of the >> REPEATED mode series Caterina sent). > > More on that: the very reason I introduced drm_gpuvm_map_req in the > first place is so we have a clear differentiation between an overall > map request and the sub-operations that are created to fulfill it. > Looks like this was not a concern for Danilo and he was happy with us > using _op_map for this. > > The other reason we might want to add drm_gpuvm_map_req is so that > information we only need while splitting a req don't pollute > drm_gpuva_op_map. Given I was going to pass the flags to the driver's > callback anyway (meaning it's needed at the op_map level), and given > you're passing madvise as a separate bool argument to various helpers > (_map_req just contains the op, not the madvise bool), I don't think > this aspect matters. Good catch! Indeed, when Himal picked up your struct drm_gpuvm_map_req patc= h, there were additional flags included in the structure. Now that it is essentially a transparent wrapper, I prefer to use struct drm_gpuva_op_map directly. However, given that you still have patches in flight that will add a flags = field to struct drm_gpuvm_map_req I think it's probably fine to introduce it righ= t away. Or did you drop this plan of adding those flags?