On 2023/6/9 23:02, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
...

quoted

                   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:)
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.

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

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.

--Jesper