On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 11:11:38 +0800 Guowei Dang wrote: > Add page_pool_put_page_nosync() to respond to dma_sync_size being 0. > > The purpose of this is to make the semantics more obvious and may > enable removing some checkings in the future. > > And in the long term, treating the nosync scenario separately provides > more flexibility for the user and enable removing of the > PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV in the future. > > Since we do have a page_pool_put_full_page(), adding a variant for > the nosync seems reasonable. You should provide an upstream user with the API. But IMHO this just complicates the already very large API, for little benefit. I'm going to leave this in patchwork for a day in case page pool maintainers disagree, but I vote "no".
