Hi Christian, Le lundi 29 janvier 2024 à 13:52 +0100, Christian König a écrit : > Am 27.01.24 um 17:50 schrieb Jonathan Cameron: > > > > > + iio_buffer_dmabuf_put(attach); > > > > > + > > > > > +out_dmabuf_put: > > > > > + dma_buf_put(dmabuf); > > > > As below. Feels like a __free(dma_buf_put) bit of magic would > > > > be a > > > > nice to have. > > > I'm working on the patches right now, just one quick question. > > > > > > Having a __free(dma_buf_put) requires that dma_buf_put is first > > > "registered" as a freeing function using DEFINE_FREE() in > > > <linux/dma- > > > buf.h>, which has not been done yet. > > > > > > That would mean carrying a dma-buf specific patch in your tree, > > > are you > > > OK with that? > > Needs an ACK from appropriate maintainer, but otherwise I'm fine > > doing > > so. Alternative is to circle back to this later after this code is > > upstream. > > Separate patches for that please, the autocleanup feature is so new > that > I'm not 100% convinced that everything works out smoothly from the > start. Separate patches is a given, did you mean outside this patchset? Because I can send a separate patchset that introduces scope-based management for dma_fence and dma_buf, but then it won't have users. Cheers, -Paul
