On 10.03.2026 13:34, 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.
Why DMA_ATTR_REQUIRE_COHERENCE should imply DMA_ATTR_DEBUGGING_IGNORE_CACHELINES? Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland
