[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160610122350.GA12354@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:23:50 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, marcheu@...gle.com,
Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>, seanpaul@...gle.com,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>,
John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>, m.chehab@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dma-buf/sync_file: add sync_file_get_fence()
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:05:29PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>
>
> Creates a function that given an sync file descriptor returns a
> fence_collection containing all fences in the sync_file.
>
> If there is only one fence in the sync_file this fence itself is returned,
> however if there is more than one, a fence_collection fence is returned.
>
> v2: Comments by Daniel Vetter
> - Adapt to new version of fence_collection_init()
> - Hold a reference for the fence we return
>
> v3: - Adapt to use fput() directly
> - rename to sync_file_get_fence() as we always return one fence
>
> v4: Adapt to use fence_array
The sync_file looks just like a fence_array plus struct file integration.
Is there a good reason why we cannot just use fence_array here?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
Powered by blists - more mailing lists