On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 08:03:09AM +0100, Christian König wrote: > On 11/19/25 17:33, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 03:53:30PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > > > > <...> > > > >>>>>>> +struct sg_table *dma_buf_map(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is clearly not a good name for this function. We already have > >>>>>> overloaded the term *mapping* with something completely different. > >>>>> > >>>>> This function performs DMA mapping, so what name do you suggest instead > >>>>> of dma_buf_map()? > >>>> > >>>> Something like dma_buf_phys_vec_to_sg_table(). I'm not good at naming > >>>> either. > >>> > >>> Can I call it simply dma_buf_mapping() as I plan to put that function in > >>> dma_buf_mapping.c > >>> file per-your request. > >> > >> No, just completely drop the term "mapping" here. This is about > >> phys_vector to sg_table conversion and nothing else. > > > > In order to progress, I renamed these functions to be > > dma_buf_phys_vec_to_sgt() and dma_buf_free_sgt(), and put everything in > > dma_buf_mapping.c file. > > Yeah, the problem is I even thought more about it and came to the conclusion > that this is still not sufficient for an rb or an Ack-by. > > A core concept of DMA-buf is that the exporter takes care of all the mappings > and not the framework. > > Calling pci_p2pdma_bus_addr_map(), dma_map_phys() or dma_map_phys() from > DMA-buf code is extremely questionable. > > That should really be inside VFIO and not DMA-buf code, so to move forward I > strongly suggest to either move that into VFIO or the DMA API directly.
We got the request to move to DMABUF and agreement a long time ago, in v5. https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ Thanks > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Thanks >
