[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8pd50mdNShTyVRX@8bytes.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 10:24:55 +0100
From:   Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, ath11k@...ts.infradead.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] iommu: Add a gfp parameter to iommu_map()
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 01:24:11PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I think it is just better to follow kernel convention and have
> allocation functions include the GFP because it is a clear signal to
> the user that there is an allocation hidden inside the API. The whole
> point of gfp is not to have multitudes of every function for every
> allocation mode.
Well, having GFP parameters is not a strict kernel convention. There are
places doing it differently and have sleeping and atomic variants of
APIs. I have to say I like the latter more. But given that this leads to
an invasion of API functions here which all do the same under the hood, I
agree it is better to go with a GFP parameter here.
Regards,
	Joerg
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
