linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] drm/xe: Use dma_fence_check_and_signal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aS3uycB40j2CptOf@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 11:38:49 -0800
From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
To: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>
CC: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Gustavo Padovan
	<gustavo@...ovan.org>, Christian König
	<christian.koenig@....com>, Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>, "Alex
 Deucher" <alexander.deucher@....com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	"Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Joonas Lahtinen" <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi
	<rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, Huang Rui
	<ray.huang@....com>, Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>, Maarten Lankhorst
	<maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Lucas De Marchi
	<lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Thomas Hellström
	<thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	<intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] drm/xe: Use dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked()

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 11:50:08AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> Xe is one of the few users utilizing the return code of
> dma_fence_signal() to check whether a fence had already been signaled by
> someone else.
> 
> To clean up and simplify the dma_fence API, the few kernel users relying
> on that behavior shall be ported to an alternative function.
> 
> Replace dma_fence_signal_locked() with
> dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c
> index b2a0c46dfcd4..f6057456e460 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
>  {
>  	struct xe_hw_fence *fence, *next;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> -	int err;
>  	bool tmp;
>  
>  	if (XE_WARN_ON(!list_empty(&irq->pending))) {
> @@ -93,9 +92,8 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
>  		spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
>  		list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next, &irq->pending, irq_link) {
>  			list_del_init(&fence->irq_link);
> -			err = dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
> +			XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked(&fence->dma));

I think XE_WARN_ON can compile out in certain builds. Best to leave warn on logic as is.

Also a little confused by this new helper... Doesn't
dma_fence_signal_locked already check if a fence is already signaled and
bail? Running out the door so I don't have time dig in here, but can you
explain?

Matt

>  			dma_fence_put(&fence->dma);
> -			XE_WARN_ON(err);
>  		}
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
>  		dma_fence_end_signalling(tmp);
> -- 
> 2.49.0
>