On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 09:34:05AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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.
Yes, this is how I implemented in my v2, which I didn't send yet :). Thanks > > Jason
