[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426150208.GJ7857@joana>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:02:08 -0300
From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/8] dma-buf/fence: add fence_collection fences
2016-04-26 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:33:21PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
> >
> > struct fence_collection inherits from struct fence and carries a
> > collection of fences that needs to be waited together.
> >
> > It is useful to translate a sync_file to a fence to remove the complexity
> > of dealing with sync_files on DRM drivers. So even if there are many
> > fences in the sync_file that needs to waited for a commit to happen,
> > they all get added to the fence_collection and passed for DRM use as
> > a standard struct fence.
> >
> > That means that no changes needed to any driver besides supporting fences.
> >
> > fence_collection's fence doesn't belong to any timeline context, so
> > fence_is_later() and fence_later() are not meant to be called with
> > fence_collections fences.
> >
> > v2: Comments by Daniel Vetter:
> > - merge fence_collection_init() and fence_collection_add()
> > - only add callbacks at ->enable_signalling()
> > - remove fence_collection_put()
> > - check for type on to_fence_collection()
> > - adjust fence_is_later() and fence_later() to WARN_ON() if they
> > are used with collection fences.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
>
> FENCE_NO_CONTEXT semantics needs an ack from amdgpu maintainers. I'm not
> entirely sure they might not hit the new WARN_ON by accident now. Please
> cc Alex Deucher & Christian König.
Sure, I'll Cc then in the revision. But if they use
fence_context_alloc() to get the context they should never hit any
WARN_ON as context numbers now starts at 1. 0 is reserved for
FENCE_NO_CONTEXT.
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists