On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:45:38AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Jason is right. Indeed the rdma/uverbs case needs some extension to > ensure that the coherent mapping is used, what is not possible now. This > however doesn't mean that the DMA_ATTR_CPU_CACHE_OVERLAP is not needed > for that use case too. I'm open to accept both. The only question I have > is which name should we use? We already have DMA_ATTR_CPU_CACHE_CLEAN, > while DMA_ATTR_CPU_CACHE_OVERLAP and > DMA_ATTR_DEBUGGING_IGNORE_CACHELINES were proposed here. The last seems > to be most descriptive.
If we do DMA_ATTR_REQUIRE_COHERENCE then I imagine it would internally also set DMA_ATTR_DEBUGGING_IGNORE_CACHELINES, but I'd prefer that detail not leak into the callers. Jason
