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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC77DC4320A for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 10:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F6D60187 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 10:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239709AbhHQKoH (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2021 06:44:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:32890 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231837AbhHQKoD (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2021 06:44:03 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12C64C061764 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 03:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id mq3so1864595pjb.5 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 03:43:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=+/innh2PtgXkbsfaqLPlB3xD+duTFD4lC6SMGbPTr0s=; b=PscStddJITSywwdUV+jIVYrvl6WtRVTuWXfFBysREhc47Lixod3p2Dbu7LKbk2uzJK 5NDNKOsaiFiWD6ZUp+cpOwpfioWg+gsCIIe9TVwy7SQfykxRkW2wGLMCdipXaO8ZtXUm cXGdqdm7op+sq6zERi1tpUj7uucsf7lfPuFj4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=+/innh2PtgXkbsfaqLPlB3xD+duTFD4lC6SMGbPTr0s=; b=GIykIn42rvkgH/ycXuD+fKR5l6aL0BfN0i9ZPX6SSsTFRHwZxNPEA04qb/bGEpDZu5 bgUvjcL/Q5wm8AT2XCruDSWtFoj/wo6X+OhmHdJ+HSoMFEjjUCxhr1Ekwb4p4Eosaybo QO/axA9wUVEwrHS/GqSAdKOb+zZ3ObTqLsGAxgComlV5HV/87xM0VRh+eG6GqYNdZ1ua lO9i9AdCS4kE826+AJ2P2E6Y635GUV1EnkrSzpIHGLwM7O/7yllrvMY8jG/TSutwHHj3 DpJSvNq6ddxrBzgf+qWq6FRvF+BhafRxPMYCqar43hAWESl5DTPtIRAbgTSUPcul+Xfm Lc4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533041sCzxq33LcZkRxI2b4vY+tigDfoIfm6Y1bMAAhsICvo2Sp2 Fx2ypsahEWq/XgPtICOaPmzjUg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybzjf0mJSCoiJtrctCpE6UW3O4/wTk2jQoBgDJdeJg2rIJsLjLpw6AV7zntZb+b7ID4V5wZg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:3d4a:: with SMTP id k71mr3019404pga.276.1629197010727; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 03:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2409:10:2e40:5100:8aab:cb84:5fe8:99dd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r14sm2312434pff.106.2021.08.17.03.43.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 17 Aug 2021 03:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 19:43:25 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Hans Verkuil Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Tomasz Figa , Dafna Hirschfeld , Ricardo Ribalda , Christoph Hellwig , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 6/8] videobuf2: add queue memory coherency parameter Message-ID: References: <20210727070517.443167-1-senozhatsky@chromium.org> <20210727070517.443167-7-senozhatsky@chromium.org> <88491bca-f1b3-58f0-81e1-7ecec9f9da40@xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88491bca-f1b3-58f0-81e1-7ecec9f9da40@xs4all.nl> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (21/08/03 10:29), Hans Verkuil wrote: > > > > +static void set_queue_coherency(struct vb2_queue *q, bool coherent_mem) > > +{ > > + q->coherent_mem = 1; > > This I do not like: coherent memory is the default, and so I think it will > be more robust if this field is renamed to non_coherent_mem and so coherent > memory will be the default since this field will be cleared initially with > kzalloc. > > Basically a similar argument that you used in patch 2/8. > > I also think that it improves readability, since non-coherent is the > exceptional case, not the rule, and the field name corresponds with the > V4L2 memory flag name. > > I noticed that in v1 of this series it was actually called non_coherent_mem, > and it was changed in v2, actually after some comments from me. > > But I changed my mind on that, and I think it makes more sense to go back to > calling this non_coherent_mem. Ok, done. Hans, is this your final decision? :)