[PATCH] drm/gpuvm: Rename 'map' to 'op' in drm_gpuvm_map_req

[Boris Brezillon]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:55:06 +0200
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr at kernel.org> wrote:

> On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM CEST, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 13:01:46 +0200
> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at collabora.com> wrote:  
> >> On a second thought, I'm now wondering why we need drm_gpuvm_map_req in
> >> the first place. It would kinda make sense if it was containing an
> >> 
> >> 	bool madvise;
> >> 
> >> field, so you don't have to pass it around, but even then, I'm
> >> wondering if we wouldn't be better off adding this field to
> >> drm_gpuva_op_map instead and passing an drm_gpuva_op_map object to
> >> the various map helpers (like Danilo suggested in his review of the
> >> REPEATED mode series Caterina sent).  
> >
> > More on that: the very reason I introduced drm_gpuvm_map_req in the
> > first place is so we have a clear differentiation between an overall
> > map request and the sub-operations that are created to fulfill it.
> > Looks like this was not a concern for Danilo and he was happy with us
> > using _op_map for this.
> >
> > The other reason we might want to add drm_gpuvm_map_req is so that
> > information we only need while splitting a req don't pollute
> > drm_gpuva_op_map. Given I was going to pass the flags to the driver's
> > callback anyway (meaning it's needed at the op_map level), and given
> > you're passing madvise as a separate bool argument to various helpers
> > (_map_req just contains the op, not the madvise bool), I don't think
> > this aspect matters.  
> 
> Good catch! Indeed, when Himal picked up your struct drm_gpuvm_map_req patch,
> there were additional flags included in the structure. Now that it is
> essentially a transparent wrapper, I prefer to use struct drm_gpuva_op_map
> directly.
> 
> However, given that you still have patches in flight that will add a flags field
> to struct drm_gpuvm_map_req I think it's probably fine to introduce it right
> away. Or did you drop this plan of adding those flags?

I need the flags field in the op_map too (so I can propagate it to the
drm_gpuva object), so I'd rather go with an op_map object directly and
kill drm_gpuvm_map_req now.