Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/7] dma: compile-out DMA sync op calls when not used

[Robin Murphy]

On 19/02/2024 12:53 pm, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:20:50 +0000
>
> > On 2024-02-14 4:21 pm, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > -static inline void dma_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
> > > dma_addr_t addr,
> > > -        size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > > +static inline void __dma_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
> > > +        dma_addr_t addr, size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir)
> >
> > To me it would feel more logical to put all the wrappers inside the
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_DMA and not touch these stubs at all (what does it
> > mean to skip an inline no-op?). Or in fact, if dma_skip_sync() is
> > constant false for !HAS_DMA, then we could also just make the external
> > function declarations unconditional and remove the stubs. Not a critical
> > matter though, and I defer to whatever Christoph thinks is most
> > maintainable.
>
> It's done like that due to that I'm adding a runtime check in the second
> patch. I don't feel like touching this twice makes sense.

Huh? Why would anything need touching twice? All I'm saying is that it's 
pretty pointless to add any invocations of dma_skip_sync() in !HAS_DMA 
paths where we already know the whole API is stubbed out anyway. The 
only cases which are worth differentiating here are HAS_DMA + 
DMA_NEED_SYNC vs. HAS_DMA + !DMA_NEED_SYNC (with the subsequent runtime 
check then just subdividing the former).

> [...]
>
> > > @@ -348,18 +348,72 @@ static inline void dma_unmap_single_attrs(struct
> > > device *dev, dma_addr_t addr,
> > >        return dma_unmap_page_attrs(dev, addr, size, dir, attrs);
> > >    }
> > >    +static inline void __dma_sync_single_range_for_cpu(struct device *dev,
> > > +        dma_addr_t addr, unsigned long offset, size_t size,
> > > +        enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > > +{
> > > +    __dma_sync_single_for_cpu(dev, addr + offset, size, dir);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void __dma_sync_single_range_for_device(struct device
> > > *dev,
> > > +        dma_addr_t addr, unsigned long offset, size_t size,
> > > +        enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > > +{
> > > +    __dma_sync_single_for_device(dev, addr + offset, size, dir);
> > > +}
> >
> > There is no need to introduce these two.
>
> I already replied to this in the previous thread. Some subsys may want
> to check for the shortcut earlier to avoid call ladders of their own
> functions. See patch 6 for example where I use this one.

Ugh, no. If the page pool code wants to be clever poking around and 
sidestepping parts of the documented API, it can flippin' well open-code 
a single addition to call __dma_sync_single_for_device() directly 
itself. I'm not at all keen on having to maintain "common" APIs for such 
niche trickery.

Thanks,
Robin.