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

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Thu Aug 21, 2025 at 3:01 PM CEST, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> 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.

In this case I agree, let's use struct drm_gpuva_op_map directly.