Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure

[Christian König]

Am 29.01.24 um 14:06 schrieb Paul Cercueil:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Le lundi 29 janvier 2024 à 13:52 +0100, Christian König a écrit :
> > Am 27.01.24 um 17:50 schrieb Jonathan Cameron:
> > > > > > +	iio_buffer_dmabuf_put(attach);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +out_dmabuf_put:
> > > > > > +	dma_buf_put(dmabuf);
> > > > > As below. Feels like a __free(dma_buf_put) bit of magic would
> > > > > be a
> > > > > nice to have.
> > > > I'm working on the patches right now, just one quick question.
> > > >
> > > > Having a __free(dma_buf_put) requires that dma_buf_put is first
> > > > "registered" as a freeing function using DEFINE_FREE() in
> > > > <linux/dma-
> > > > buf.h>, which has not been done yet.
> > > >
> > > > That would mean carrying a dma-buf specific patch in your tree,
> > > > are you
> > > > OK with that?
> > > Needs an ACK from appropriate maintainer, but otherwise I'm fine
> > > doing
> > > so.  Alternative is to circle back to this later after this code is
> > > upstream.
> > Separate patches for that please, the autocleanup feature is so new
> > that
> > I'm not 100% convinced that everything works out smoothly from the
> > start.
> Separate patches is a given, did you mean outside this patchset?
> Because I can send a separate patchset that introduces scope-based
> management for dma_fence and dma_buf, but then it won't have users.

Outside of the patchset, this is essentially brand new stuff.

IIRC we have quite a number of dma_fence selftests and sw_sync which is 
basically code inside the drivers/dma-buf directory only there for 
testing DMA-buf functionality.

Convert those over as well and I'm more than happy to upstream this change.

Thanks,
Christian.

> Cheers,
> -Paul