On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 6:02 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +struct system_heap {
> > + struct dma_heap *heap;
> > +} sys_heap;
>
> It seems like this structure could be removed and if would improve
> the code flow.
Good point. We actually keep a few things in the cma version of this,
and I think I copied that over when I started here, but never cleaned
it up.
> > +static struct dma_heap_ops system_heap_ops = {
> > + .allocate = system_heap_allocate,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int system_heap_create(void)
> > +{
> > + struct dma_heap_export_info exp_info;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + exp_info.name = "system_heap";
> > + exp_info.ops = &system_heap_ops;
> > + exp_info.priv = &sys_heap;
> > +
> > + sys_heap.heap = dma_heap_add(&exp_info);
> > + if (IS_ERR(sys_heap.heap))
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(sys_heap.heap);
> > +
> > + return ret;
>
> The data structures here seem a little odd. I think you want to:
Yea. There is some awkwardness, and some is due to using the helper
infrastructure, but some is just clutter and I'll revise that.
> - mark all dma_heap_ops instanes consts, as we generally do that for
> all structures containing function pointers
Done.
> - move the name into dma_heap_ops.
I'm not sure this is useful, as there are cases where there are
multiple heaps that use the same ops. Specifically the multiple CMA
heaps.
> - remove the dma_heap_export_info structure, which is a bit pointless
Andrew and I went back and forth on this a bit. It looks like he just
responded so I'll defer to his answer.
> - don't bother setting a private data, as you don't need it.
> If other heaps need private data I'd suggest to switch to embedding
> the dma_heap structure into containing structure insted so that you
> can use container_of to get at it.
Fair. There is some cases where we use the priv data, but I'll try to
see if I can minimize it. And again, I think having the dma_heap
structure be internal/private to the heap implementations made it
difficult to be a contained structure. So it goes back to the
export_info structure point above.
> - also why is the free callback passed as a callback rather than
> kept in dma_heap_ops, next to the paired alloc one?
This one is due to the optional heap helpers infrastructure. If a heap
implements its own dma_buf_ops, it can have release directly call the
buffer free function. However, since we tried to minimize the code we
have the heap helpers infrastructure which implements a shared
dma_buf_op, we need some way for the helper release function to call
back to the heap specific free. We could put it in the dma_heaps_ops
like you suggest, but that brings some confusion as well, as nothing
in the dma-heaps core would call it, it would only be a tool for the
helper infrastructure to trace back to the heap specific free call.
This is why its passed to the heap_helper initializer. I agree it
feels a little odd, so I'd welcome alternate approaches.
Very much appreciate the review and feedback! I'll try to address as
much of this as I can in the next revision.
thanks
-john
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
