On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 07:13:05PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: >> Can we have a comment that states this assumption along with the flag? >> Because when it breaks, it will keep someone cursing for days why DMA >> sometimes fails on their device before they find out it's not synced. >> And then wondering why the code makes such silly assumptions... > > Indeed, apologies if it wasn't totally clear, but I really was implying a > literal "may skip sync if coherent and not using SWIOTLB (which matches > dma-direct)" flag, documented as such, and not trying to dress it up as > anything more generic. I just can't suggest a suitably concise name for > that of the top of my head... :) Yes, that seems like the right way to go.
