[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d6bef39c-f940-4097-8ca3-0cf4ef89a743@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:52:33 +0100
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] iio: core: Add new DMABUF interface infrastructure
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.
Regards,
Christian.
>
>> Cheers,
>> -Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists