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:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 16:48:04 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Nate Drude <nate.d@variscite.com>, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        eran.m@variscite.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-contiguous: add optional cma_name for cma= kernel
 parameter
Message-ID: <20220923144804.GA18477@lst.de>
References: <20220912163805.4113238-1-nate.d@variscite.com> <aa96eb55-4925-221f-1fb2-8226ea347c22@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aa96eb55-4925-221f-1fb2-8226ea347c22@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:45:17AM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> If userspace expects the CMA heap driver to expose a consistent name for 
> CMA heaps, shouldn't it be the CMA heap driver's responsibility to expose a 
> consistent name for CMA heaps? Tinkering with the core CMA code doesn't 
> feel like the right approach.

Agreed.  In fact I think exposing this name in a uapi seems like a really
bad idea that is asking for a lot of trouble.