On 4/30/26 07:03, Christian König wrote:
On 4/29/26 17:25, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
Introduce a new file callback that allows creating long-term dma mapping. All necessary information together with a dmabuf will be passed in the second argument of type struct io_dmabuf_token, which will be defined in following patches.
Well first of all the naming is probably not the best. Maybe rather call that dma-buf attachment or context or mappping.
"Mapping" or "attachment" would be confusing as maps are created lazily together with struct io_dmabuf_map. I can name it create_dmabuf_ctx(), but I decided to use "token" not to collide with dmabuf terminology. e.g. I wouldn't be surprised to see some dmabuf ctx in the dmabuf implementation code. Maybe "*io_ctx" would be better.
Then the patch should probably define the full interface and not just add the callback here and then the structure in a follow up patch.
I strongly prefer splitting patches so that they touch one tree at a time whenever possible. tbh, I don't see much of a problem it being not defined as it's just forwarded in first patches, but I can shuffle it around in the series so that definitions come first.