[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250909171831.GC882933@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:18:31 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Simona Vetter <simona.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mm/mmu_notifier: Allow two-pass struct
mmu_interval_notifiers
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 01:46:21PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> +struct mmu_interval_notifier_finish {
> + struct list_head link;
> + /**
> + * @finish: Driver callback for the finish pass.
> + * @final: Pointer to the mmu_interval_notifier_finish structure.
> + * @range: The mmu_notifier_range.
> + * @cur_seq: The current sequence set by the first pass.
> + *
> + * Note that there is no error reporting for additional passes.
> + */
> + void (*finish)(struct mmu_interval_notifier_finish *final,
> + const struct mmu_notifier_range *range,
> + unsigned long cur_seq);
I would rather this be in mmu_interval_notifier_ops, though I guess I
see why it was done like this, I don't think it is a great idea for
DRM to wrapper the notifier library with yet another library :\
Regardless
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists