Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 5 May 2022 13:50:15 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@google.com>,
        Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>, Kenny.Ho@amd.com,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        kernel-team@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] cgroup: gpu: Add a cgroup controller for
 allocator attribution of GPU memory
Message-ID: <20220505115015.GD10890@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20220502231944.3891435-1-tjmercier@google.com>
 <20220502231944.3891435-3-tjmercier@google.com>
 <20220504122558.GB24172@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <CABdmKX2DJy0i3XAP7xTduZ8KFVKtgto24w714YJNUb_=pfYiKw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABdmKX2DJy0i3XAP7xTduZ8KFVKtgto24w714YJNUb_=pfYiKw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 10:19:20AM -0700, "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com> wrote:
> Should I export these now for this series?

Hehe, _I_ don't know.
Depends on the likelihood this lands in and is built upon.

> No, except maybe the gpucg_bucket name which I can add an accessor
> function for. Won't this mean depending on LTO for potential inlining
> of the functions currently implemented in the header?

Yes.  Also depends how much inlining here would be performance relevant.
I suggested this with an OS vendor hat on, i.e. the less such ABI, the
simpler.

> I'm happy to make this change, but I wonder why some parts of the
> kernel take this approach and others do not.

I think there is no convention (see also
Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst ;-)).

Regards,
Michal