On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 07:05:21PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 3/28/19 6:59 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote: > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>> Indeed I did not realize there is an hmm "pfn" until I saw this function: > >>>>> > >>>>> /* > >>>>> * hmm_pfn_from_pfn() - create a valid HMM pfn value from pfn > >>>>> * @range: range use to encode HMM pfn value > >>>>> * @pfn: pfn value for which to create the HMM pfn > >>>>> * Returns: valid HMM pfn for the pfn > >>>>> */ > >>>>> static inline uint64_t hmm_pfn_from_pfn(const struct hmm_range *range, > >>>>> unsigned long pfn) > >>>>> > >>>>> So should this patch contain some sort of helper like this... maybe? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm assuming the "hmm_pfn" being returned above is the device pfn being > >>>>> discussed here? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm also thinking calling it pfn is confusing. I'm not advocating a new type > >>>>> but calling the "device pfn's" "hmm_pfn" or "device_pfn" seems like it would > >>>>> have shortened the discussion here. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> That helper is also use today by nouveau so changing that name is not that > >>>> easy it does require the multi-release dance. So i am not sure how much > >>>> value there is in a name change. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Once the dust settles, I would expect that a name change for this could go > >>> via Andrew's tree, right? It seems incredible to claim that we've built something > >>> that effectively does not allow any minor changes! > >>> > >>> I do think it's worth some *minor* trouble to improve the name, assuming that we > >>> can do it in a simple patch, rather than some huge maintainer-level effort. > >> > >> Change to nouveau have to go through nouveau tree so changing name means: > > Yes, I understand the guideline, but is that always how it must be done? Ben (+cc)? Yes, it is not only about nouveau, it will be about every single upstream driver using HMM. It is the easiest solution all other solution involve coordination and/or risk of people that handle the conflict to do something that break things. Cheers, Jérôme
