On Mon Mar 2, 2026 at 10:06 PM JST, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > On Mon Mar 2, 2026 at 8:42 PM JST, Eliot Courtney wrote: >> Splits large RPCs if necessary and sends the remaining parts using >> continuation records. RPCs that do not need continuation records >> continue to write directly into the command buffer. Ones that do write >> into a staging buffer first, so there is one copy. >> >> Continuation record for receive is not necessary to support at the >> moment because those replies do not need to be read and are currently >> drained by retrying `receive_msg` on ERANGE. >> >> Signed-off-by: Eliot Courtney <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs | 1 + >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/cmdq.rs | 41 +++++++- >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/continuation.rs | 167 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp/fw.rs | 4 + >> 4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs >> index 174feaca0a6b..ccf56f1ad246 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/gsp.rs >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ >> >> pub(crate) mod cmdq; >> pub(crate) mod commands; >> +mod continuation; > > Looking at this series it seems more logical to have `continuation` > under `cmdq` than just `gsp`. > > Nothing in `gsp` makes use of it, as it is an implementation detail of > the command queue. And that way the `pub(super)` exports would be > perfectly scoped to their user. > > Re-reading my review of v3, I am the one who suggested to put it under > `gsp` - so this is my mistake. > > No need to resend just for that, I can fix when applying and this should > have no impact on the patches that come above it.
I think we might have one more round on this so for now I have made this change locally and will be in the next version.
