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: Add the Physical Address List DMA mapping type Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:38:01 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <21-v1-b5cab63049c0+191af-dmabuf_map_type_jgg@nvidia.com> References: <0-v1-b5cab63049c0+191af-dmabuf_map_type_jgg@nvidia.com> <21-v1-b5cab63049c0+191af-dmabuf_map_type_jgg@nvidia.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_MODULES(dma_buf_pal_map_phys, "iommufd"); > +... > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(dma_buf_pal_unmap_phys, "DMA_BUF"); `map_phys` is restricted to iommufd, but `unmap_phys` is open to all. Since `unmap_phys` is only useful to importers (who obtained the mapping via `map_phys`), and only iommufd can call `map_phys`, should `unmap_phys` also be restricted to iommufd for consistency? > +struct dma_buf_phys_list { > + size_t length; > + struct dma_buf_phys_vec phys[] __counted_by(length); > +}; The field name `length` is slightly ambiguous -- is it byte length or entry count? The `__counted_by` annotation clarifies it's an entry count, but a name like `num_entries` or `count` would be more self-documenting. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer