Hi Jakub On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 at 16:24, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. +1000, I think the API has grown more than it has to and we now have way too many abstractions. I'll try to find some time and see if I can come up with a cleanup that makes sense Thanks /Ilias > I'm going to leave this in patchwork for a day in case page > pool maintainers disagree, but I vote "no".
