On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 11:32:20PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > On 1/18/26 11:25 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 01:40:11PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > > > On 1/18/26 4:08 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]> > > > ... > > > > +/** > > > > + * dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke - check if a DMA-buf importer > > > > implements > > > > + * revoke semantics. > > > > + * @attach: the DMA-buf attachment to check > > > > + * > > > > + * Returns true if DMA-buf importer honors revoke semantics, which is > > > > + * negotiated with the exporter, by making sure that importer > > > > implements > > > > + * .invalidate_mappings() callback and calls to dma_buf_pin() after > > > > + * DMA-buf attach. > > > > + */ > > > > +static inline bool > > > > +dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke(struct dma_buf_attachment *attach) > > > > > > Maybe a slight rename, to dma_buf_attachment_is_revocable()? > > > > I can do that. The issue is that even "dma_buf_attachment_is_revoke" > > is already too long. :) > > > > If you're really pressed for space for some reason,
Mainly aesthetics. > maybe dma_buf_attach_revocable() ? > > Just trying to hang on to the "revocable" part of the name, as > I think it's an improvement. Sure > > thanks, > -- > John Hubbard > >
