From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@intel.com>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe: Extend drm_xe_vm_bind_op
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:18:58 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZPi0gnYZlMk6mD2d@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230904144644.3259148-1-mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 05:46:44PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> The bind api is extensible but for a single bind op, there
> is not a mechanism to extend. Add extensions field to
> struct drm_xe_vm_bind_op.
But why would you want to extend the operation?
Except for the destroy ones, every ioctl itself is extensible.
So, DRM_IOCTL_XE_VM_BIND is extensible. Why would we need to get
prepared to extend the operations themselves? And if we extend
the operation, what to do with the extension at the ioctl level?
which one has precedence? how to organize that?
>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
> Cc: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Dominik Grzegorzek <dominik.grzegorzek@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> index 86f16d50e9cc..5c6c86f5e5fc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/xe_drm.h
> @@ -552,6 +552,9 @@ struct drm_xe_vm_destroy {
> };
>
> struct drm_xe_vm_bind_op {
> + /** @extensions: Pointer to the first extension struct, if any */
> + __u64 extensions;
> +
> /**
> * @obj: GEM object to operate on, MBZ for MAP_USERPTR, MBZ for UNMAP
> */
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-06 17:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-04 12:36 [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 0/1] [UAPI]: Make bind op extensible Mika Kuoppala
2023-09-04 12:36 ` [Intel-xe] [RFC PATCH 1/1] drm/xe: Extend drm_xe_vm_bind_op Mika Kuoppala
2023-09-04 13:52 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for : Make bind op extensible Patchwork
2023-09-04 13:52 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-09-04 13:54 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2023-09-04 14:01 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-09-04 14:01 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Hooks: failure " Patchwork
2023-09-04 14:01 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checksparse: warning " Patchwork
2023-09-04 14:46 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe: Extend drm_xe_vm_bind_op Mika Kuoppala
2023-09-06 17:18 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2023-09-07 13:51 ` Mika Kuoppala
2023-09-07 21:45 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-09-08 8:17 ` Joonas Lahtinen
2023-09-08 12:47 ` Vivi, Rodrigo
2023-09-08 13:06 ` Thomas Hellström
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZPi0gnYZlMk6mD2d@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=francois.dugast@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox