On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:37:19AM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > On 7/29/26 07:59, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> The method name feels a bit convoluted, but given all the >> previous discussions I don't care too strongly. I'll leave >> the dma-buf side review to those who understand it. > > I assume you mean this:
Yes. > > + int (*init_dma_buf_io_ctx)(struct file *, struct dma_buf_io_ctx *); > > I agree, and all dma_buf_io_[ctx,map] look clunky, but I don't > see what I can drop out of the name. Suggestions? Maybe I at least > should make the fs op sth like "register_dma_buf". I just remember scares from the last discussion :) register_dma_buf sounds fine to be, but unless I misremember there were objections to that before. > > -- > Pavel Begunkov ---end quoted text---
