Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/4] page_pool: frag API support for 32-bit arch with 64-bit DMA

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer]

On 10/06/2023 15.13, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2023/6/9 23:02, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> ...
>
> > >                     PP_FLAG_DMA_SYNC_DEV |\
> > >                     PP_FLAG_PAGE_FRAG)
> > >    +#define PAGE_POOL_DMA_USE_PP_FRAG_COUNT    \
> > > +        (sizeof(dma_addr_t) > sizeof(unsigned long))
> > > +
> >
> > I have a problem with the name PAGE_POOL_DMA_USE_PP_FRAG_COUNT
> > because it is confusing to read in an if-statement.
>
> Actually, it is already in an if-statement before this patch:)

I did notice, but I've had a problem with this name for a while.
(see later, why this might be long in separate patch)

> Maybe starting to use it in the driver is confusing to you?
> If not, maybe we can keep it that for now, and change it when
> we come up with a better name.
>
> > Proposals rename to:  DMA_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT
> >   Or:  MM_DMA_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT
> >   Or:  DMA_ADDR_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT
>
> It seems DMA_ADDR_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT is better,
> and DMA_ADDR_UPPER_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT seems more accurate if a
> longer macro name is not an issue here.

I like the shorter DMA_ADDR_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT variant best.

> > Notice how I also removed the prefix PAGE_POOL_ because this is a
> > MM-layer constraint and not a property of page_pool.
>
> I am not sure if it is a MM-layer constraint yet.
> Do you mean 'MM-layer constraint' as 'struct page' not having
> enough space for page pool with 32-bit arch with 64-bit DMA?

Yes.

> If that is the case, we may need a more generic name for that
> constraint instead of 'DMA_ADDR_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT'?

I think this name is clear enough; the dma_addr_t is overlapping the 
pp_frag_count.


> And a more generic name seems confusing for page pool too, as
> it doesn't tell that we only have that problem for 32-bit arch
> with 64-bit DMA.
>
> So if the above makes sense, it seems we may need to keep the
> PAGE_POOL_ prefix, which would be
> 'PAGE_POOL_DMA_ADDR_UPPER_OVERLAP_PP_FRAG_COUNT' if the long
> name is not issue here.

I think it gets too long now.

Also I still disagree with PAGE_POOL_ prefix, if anything it is a
property of 'struct page'.  Thus a prefix with PAGE_ make more sense to
me, but it also gets too long (for my taste).

> Anyway, naming is hard, we may need a seperate patch to explain
> it, which is not really related to this patchset IHMO, so I'd
> rather keep it as before if we can not come up with a name which
> is not confusing to most people.

Okay, lets do the (re)naming in another patch then.

--Jesper