Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2023 17:39:33 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH drm-misc-next v7 4/7] drm/gpuvm: add an abstraction for a VM / BO combination | From | Danilo Krummrich <> |
| |
On 10/31/23 12:25, Thomas Hellström wrote: > On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> Add an abstraction layer between the drm_gpuva mappings of a >> particular >> drm_gem_object and this GEM object itself. The abstraction represents >> a >> combination of a drm_gem_object and drm_gpuvm. The drm_gem_object >> holds >> a list of drm_gpuvm_bo structures (the structure representing this >> abstraction), while each drm_gpuvm_bo contains list of mappings of >> this >> GEM object. >> >> This has multiple advantages: >> >> 1) We can use the drm_gpuvm_bo structure to attach it to various >> lists >> of the drm_gpuvm. This is useful for tracking external and evicted >> objects per VM, which is introduced in subsequent patches. >> >> 2) Finding mappings of a certain drm_gem_object mapped in a certain >> drm_gpuvm becomes much cheaper. >> >> 3) Drivers can derive and extend the structure to easily represent >> driver specific states of a BO for a certain GPUVM. >> >> The idea of this abstraction was taken from amdgpu, hence the credit >> for >> this idea goes to the developers of amdgpu. >> >> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> >> Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@redhat.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c | 335 +++++++++++++++++++++-- >> -- >> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_uvmm.c | 64 +++-- >> include/drm/drm_gem.h | 32 +-- >> include/drm/drm_gpuvm.h | 188 +++++++++++++- >> 4 files changed, 533 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-) > > That checkpatch.pl error still remains as well.
I guess you refer to:
ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition #633: FILE: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_uvmm.c:1165: + if (!(op->gem.obj = obj))
This was an intentional decision, since in this specific case it seems to be more readable than the alternatives.
However, if we consider this to be a hard rule, which we never ever break, I'm fine changing it too.
> > Thanks, > Thomas >
| |