From: h...@lst.de <h...@lst.de> Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2024 10:56 PM > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 03:55:58PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > > Unless there is further discussion on this point, I'll just keep the > > original > > "is_swiotlb_buffer()" in v2. > > That is the wrong name for something that returns the pool as pointed > out before.
OK. Since any new name could cause confusion with the existing swiotlb_find_pool(), here's my proposal: 1) Rename is_swiotlb_buffer() to swiotlb_find_pool(), since it now returns a pool. A NULL return value indicates that the paddr is not an swiotlb buffer. 2) Similarly, rename is_xen_swiotlb_buffer() to xen_swiotlb_find_pool() 3) The existing swiotlb_find_pool() has the same function signature, but it is used only where the paddr is known to be an swiotlb buffer and hence always succeeds. Rename it to __swiotlb_find_pool() as the "internal" version of swiotlb_find_pool(). 4) Do you still want is_swiotlb_buffer() as a trivial wrapper around the new swiotlb_find_pool(), for use solely in dma_direct_need_sync() where only a Boolean is needed and not the pool? Thanks, Michael
