Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 26 Jan 2022 23:57:28 -0800
From:   Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
To:     Christian =?utf-8?B?S8O2bmln?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc:     intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/19] dma-buf-map: Add helper to initialize second map
Message-ID: <20220127075728.ygwgorhnrwaocdqv@ldmartin-desk2>
References: <20220126203702.1784589-1-lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
 <20220126203702.1784589-3-lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
 <f0dbdcc0-13b5-c484-0bf3-a1f8c3e48954@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <f0dbdcc0-13b5-c484-0bf3-a1f8c3e48954@amd.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 08:27:11AM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote:
>Am 26.01.22 um 21:36 schrieb Lucas De Marchi:
>>When dma_buf_map struct is passed around, it's useful to be able to
>>initialize a second map that takes care of reading/writing to an offset
>>of the original map.
>>
>>Add a helper that copies the struct and add the offset to the proper
>>address.
>
>Well what you propose here can lead to all kind of problems and is 
>rather bad design as far as I can see.
>
>The struct dma_buf_map is only to be filled in by the exporter and 
>should not be modified in this way by the importer.

humn... not sure if I was  clear. There is no importer and exporter here.
There is a role delegation on filling out and reading a buffer when
that buffer represents a struct layout.

struct bla {
	int a;
	int b;
	int c;
	struct foo foo;
	struct bar bar;
	int d;
}


This implementation allows you to have:

	fill_foo(struct dma_buf_map *bla_map) { ... }
	fill_bar(struct dma_buf_map *bla_map) { ... }

and the first thing these do is to make sure the map it's pointing to
is relative to the struct it's supposed to write/read. Otherwise you're
suggesting everything to be relative to struct bla, or to do the same
I'm doing it, but IMO more prone to error:

	struct dma_buf_map map = *bla_map;
	dma_buf_map_incr(map, offsetof(...));

IMO this construct is worse because at a point in time in the function
the map was pointing to the wrong thing the function was supposed to
read/write.

It's also useful when the function has double duty, updating a global
part of the struct and a table inside it (see example in patch 6)

thanks
Lucas De Marchi