Re: [PATCH net-next v3 7/7] bnxt_en: add support for device memory tcp

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:44:38 -0700 Mina Almasry wrote:
> > > I haven't thought the failure of PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV
> > > for dmabuf may be wrong.
> > > I think device memory TCP is not related to this flag.
> > > So device memory TCP core API should not return failure when
> > > PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV flag is set.
> > > How about removing this condition check code in device memory TCP core?  
> >
> > I think we need to invert the check..
> > Mina, WDYT?
> 
> On a closer look, my feeling is similar to Taehee,
> PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV should be orthogonal to memory providers. The
> memory providers allocate the memory and provide the dma-addr, but
> need not dma-sync the dma-addr, right? The driver can sync the
> dma-addr if it wants and the driver can delegate the syncing to the pp
> via PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV if it wants. AFAICT I think the check should
> be removed, not inverted, but I could be missing something.

I don't know much about dmabuf but it hinges on the question whether
doing DMA sync for device on a dmabuf address is :
 - a good thing
 - a noop
 - a bad thing

If it's a good thing or a noop - agreed.

Similar question for the sync for CPU.

I agree that intuitively it should be all fine. But the fact that dmabuf
has a bespoke API for accessing the memory by the CPU makes me worried
that there may be assumptions about these addresses not getting
randomly fed into the normal DMA API..