# Re: \[PATCH net-next v18 07/14\] memory-provider: dmabuf devmem memory provider

- From: Jakub Kicinski \<kuba@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2024-08-10 03:52:39 
- List: linux-trace-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2024/08/2703058
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2024/08/2696994/t.md

```text
On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 16:45:50 +0100 Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > I think this is good, and it doesn't seem hacky to me, because we can
> > check the page_pools of the netdev while we hold rtnl, so we can be
> > sure nothing is messing with the pp configuration in the meantime.
> > Like you say below it does validate the driver rather than rely on the
> > driver saying it's doing the right thing. I'll look into putting this
> > in the next version.  
> 
> Why not have a flag set by the driver and advertising whether it
> supports providers or not, which should be checked for instance in
> netdev_rx_queue_restart()? If set, the driver should do the right
> thing. That's in addition to a new pp_params flag explicitly telling
> if pp should use providers. It's more explicit and feels a little
> less hacky.

You mean like I suggested in the previous two emails? :)

Given how easy the check is to implement, I think it's worth
adding as a sanity check. But the flag should be the main API,
if the sanity check starts to be annoying we'll ditch it.
```