On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM CEST, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:01:46 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@collabora.com> wrote: >> On a second thought, I'm now wondering why we need drm_gpuvm_map_req in >> the first place. It would kinda make sense if it was containing an >> >> bool madvise; >> >> field, so you don't have to pass it around, but even then, I'm >> wondering if we wouldn't be better off adding this field to >> drm_gpuva_op_map instead and passing an drm_gpuva_op_map object to >> the various map helpers (like Danilo suggested in his review of the >> REPEATED mode series Caterina sent). > > More on that: the very reason I introduced drm_gpuvm_map_req in the > first place is so we have a clear differentiation between an overall > map request and the sub-operations that are created to fulfill it. > Looks like this was not a concern for Danilo and he was happy with us > using _op_map for this. > > The other reason we might want to add drm_gpuvm_map_req is so that > information we only need while splitting a req don't pollute > drm_gpuva_op_map. Given I was going to pass the flags to the driver's > callback anyway (meaning it's needed at the op_map level), and given > you're passing madvise as a separate bool argument to various helpers > (_map_req just contains the op, not the madvise bool), I don't think > this aspect matters.
Good catch! Indeed, when Himal picked up your struct drm_gpuvm_map_req patch, there were additional flags included in the structure. Now that it is essentially a transparent wrapper, I prefer to use struct drm_gpuva_op_map directly. However, given that you still have patches in flight that will add a flags field to struct drm_gpuvm_map_req I think it's probably fine to introduce it right away. Or did you drop this plan of adding those flags?
