linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] drm/fence: add out-fences support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:21:02 -0500
From:   Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
To:     Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Stéphane Marchesin <marcheu@...gle.com>,
        m.chehab@...sung.com,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] drm/fence: add out-fences support

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:48:09AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org> wrote:
>> > +static void complete_crtc_signaling(struct drm_device *dev,
>> > +                                    struct drm_atomic_state *state,
>> > +                                    struct drm_out_fence_state *fence_state,
>> > +                                    unsigned int num_fences, int ret)
>> > +{
>> > +       struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> > +       struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> > +       int i;
>> > +
>> > +       if (!ret) {
>>
>> I don't think there's any reason to smash the fd install and clean-up
>> into one function. I think splitting into 2 functions and calling the
>> right one from atomic_ioctl would be better.
>
> Hm, I suggested this because the control flow in one of Gustavo's earlier
> patches look really funny. I guess it could be split up again, but with
> both callers in the current position. tbh I don't care whether it's this
> or that, both are clear improvement over the older version.

I really don't have a strong opinion either. Perhaps meet in the
middle and pass bool install_fds instead of ret (since that's kind of
an anti-pattern)?

Sean


> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch