From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 06:24:38 -0800 (to the author of the patch) > 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. If PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV is set, dma_sync_size == 0 can happen only when the HW didn't write anything *and* the driver uses only one page per frame, no frags. Very unlikely case I'd say, adding a separate wrapper for it makes no sense. >> >> The purpose of this is to make the semantics more obvious and may >> enable removing some checkings in the future. Which checks do you want to remove? >> >> 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. Why remove SYNC_DEV? >> >> Since we do have a page_pool_put_full_page(), adding a variant for >> the nosync seems reasonable. Not really. put_full_page() is for cases when either the HW-written size is unknown or the driver uses frags, those are common and widely-used. > > You should provide an upstream user with the API. Would be nice to see a real example as I don't understand the purpose of this function as well. > 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". I don't see a reason for this either. Thanks, Olek
