Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Mar 2022 09:10:58 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i2c: at91: use dma safe buffers | From | Christian König <> |
| |
Am 04.03.22 um 09:04 schrieb Wolfram Sang: > Hi Christian, > >> Maybe call your variable differently. DMA-buf is an inter driver buffer >> sharing frame we use for GPU acceleration and V4L. >> >> It doesn't cause any technical issues, but the maintainer regex now triggers >> on that. So you are CCing people not related to this code in any way. > Frankly, I think the 'dma_buf' regex is a bit too generic. 'dma_buf' > seems like a reasonable name to me if some subsystem has to deal with > different buffers which can be DMA or non-DMA, like I2C. If you git-grep > the tree, you will find it in quite some places. > > We could now think of renaming the variable to 'dmabuf' but this is > a strange and kind of arbitrary rule to remember IMO. > > I wonder if you'd miss a lot of patches if we remove 'dma_buf' from the > regex and keep 'dma_fence' and 'dma_resv'? Or extend it to 'dma_buf_' or > 'struct dma_buf'?
Yeah, I'm already considering something similar for a while.
I'm getting quite a bunch of unrelated mails because the regex is not the best.
On the other hand the framework is used in a lot of drivers and I do want to be notified when they mess with their interfaces.
Going to take a another look at that when I have time.
Thanks, Christian.
> > All the best, > > Wolfram >
| |