From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:27:16 +0200 > 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 I'd remove: * explicit 1-page-per-buffer API (leaving only the hybrid mode); * order > 0 support (barely used if at all?); * usage without DMA map and sync for device; + converting the users to netmem would allow to remove some wrappers. Thanks, Olek
