From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: dma-buf: heaps: system: document system_cc_shared heap Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 13:56:44 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260407092617.635223-1-jiri@resnulli.us> References: <20260407092617.635223-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <20260407092617.635223-1-jiri@resnulli.us> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Placement**: Correct -- the new entry is inserted between the `system` heap and the `default_cma_region` heap, which is the natural ordering since `system_cc_shared` is a variant of the system heap. **Content accuracy**: The description covers the key aspects: - What it allocates (virtually contiguous, cacheable, shared/decrypted memory) - When it's present (CoCo VMs with memory encryption active) - Why it exists (device DMA without TDISP support) - When it's absent (non-CoCo configurations) **Minor wording nit**: The phrase: ``` making them accessible for device DMA without TDISP support ``` is slightly ambiguous -- it could be parsed as "accessible for [device DMA without TDISP support]" or "accessible for device DMA, [without needing TDISP support]". Both readings arrive at the same meaning, but adding a comma would make it unambiguous: ``` making them accessible for device DMA, without requiring TDISP support. ``` This is a very minor readability suggestion, not a blocking issue. **Naming convention**: The name `system_cc_shared` aligns well with the naming convention guidelines documented later in the same file -- it describes the memory properties (shared/decrypted for confidential computing) rather than implementation details. **Reviewed-by**: Already has `Reviewed-by: T.J.Mercier `. **Overall**: Clean documentation patch. No objections. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer