Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/19] dma-buf-map: Add helper to initialize second map

[Christian König]

Am 27.01.22 um 09:18 schrieb Lucas De Marchi:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 09:02:54AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 27.01.22 um 08:57 schrieb Lucas De Marchi:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 08:27:11AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 26.01.22 um 21:36 schrieb Lucas De Marchi:
> > > > > [SNIP]
> > > humn... not sure if I was  clear. There is no importer and exporter 
> > > here.
> >
> > Yeah, and exactly that's what I'm pointing out as problem here.
> >
> > You are using the inter driver framework for something internal to 
> > the driver. That is an absolutely clear NAK!
> >
> > We could discuss that, but you guys are just sending around patches 
> > to do this without any consensus that this is a good idea.
>
> s/you guys/you/ if you have to blame anyone - I'm the only s-o-b in
> these patches. I'm sending these to _build consensus_ on what may be a 
> good
> use for it showing a real problem it's helping to fix.

Well a cover letter would have been helpful, my impression was that you 
have a larger set and just want to upstream some minor DMA-buf changes 
necessary for it.

Now I know why people are bugging me all the time to add cover letters 
to add more context to my sets.

> From its documentation:
>
>  * The type :c:type:`struct dma_buf_map <dma_buf_map>` and its helpers 
> are
>  * actually independent from the dma-buf infrastructure. When sharing 
> buffers
>  * among devices, drivers have to know the location of the memory to 
> access
>  * the buffers in a safe way. :c:type:`struct dma_buf_map <dma_buf_map>`
>  * solves this problem for dma-buf and its users. If other drivers or
>  * sub-systems require similar functionality, the type could be 
> generalized
>  * and moved to a more prominent header file.
>
> if there is no consensus and a better alternative, I'm perfectly fine in
> throwing it out and using the better approach.

When Thomas Zimmermann upstreamed the dma_buf_map work we had a 
discussion if that shouldn't be independent of the DMA-buf framework.

The consensus was that as soon as we have more widely use for it this 
should be made independent. So basically that is what's happening now.

I suggest the following approach:
1. Find a funky name for this, something like iomem_, kiomap_ or similar.
2. Separate this from all you driver dependent work and move the 
dma_buf_map structure out of DMA-buf into this new whatever_ prefix.
3. Ping Thomas, LKML, me and probably a couple of other core people if 
this is the right idea or not.
4. Work on dropping the map parameter from dma_buf_vunmap(). This is 
basically why we can't modify the pointers returned from dma_buf_vmap() 
and has already cause a few problems with dma_buf_map_incr().

Regards,
Christian.

> Lucas De Marchi