On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:47:57AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c index d3fbd950be94..8d194b09ee3d 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c @@ -119,12 +119,23 @@ static void dma_fence_array_release(struct dma_fence *fence) dma_fence_free(fence); } +static void dma_fence_array_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence,
ktime_t deadline)+{
- struct dma_fence_array *array = to_dma_fence_array(fence);
- unsigned i;
- for (i = 0; i < array->num_fences; ++i)
dma_fence_set_deadline(array->fences[i], deadline);
Hm I wonder whether this can go wrong, and whether we need Christian's massive fence iterator that I've seen flying around. If you nest these things too much it could all go wrong I think. I looked at other users which inspect dma_fence_array and none of them have a risk for unbounded recursion.
Maybe check with Christian. -Daniel
+}
const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_array_ops = { .get_driver_name = dma_fence_array_get_driver_name, .get_timeline_name = dma_fence_array_get_timeline_name, .enable_signaling = dma_fence_array_enable_signaling, .signaled = dma_fence_array_signaled, .release = dma_fence_array_release,
- .set_deadline = dma_fence_array_set_deadline,
}; EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_array_ops); -- 2.31.1