On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:54 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:47:58AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c index 1b4cb3e5cec9..736a9ad3ea6d 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c @@ -208,6 +208,18 @@ static void dma_fence_chain_release(struct dma_fence *fence) dma_fence_free(fence); }
+static void dma_fence_chain_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence,
ktime_t deadline)+{
dma_fence_chain_for_each(fence, fence) {struct dma_fence_chain *chain = to_dma_fence_chain(fence);struct dma_fence *f = chain ? chain->fence : fence;Doesn't this just end up calling set_deadline on a chain, potenetially resulting in recursion? Also I don't think this should ever happen, why did you add that?
Tbh the fence-chain was the part I was a bit fuzzy about, and the main reason I added igt tests. The iteration is similar to how, for ex, dma_fence_chain_signaled() work, and according to the igt test it does what was intended
BR, -R
-Daniel
dma_fence_set_deadline(f, deadline);}+}
const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_chain_ops = { .use_64bit_seqno = true, .get_driver_name = dma_fence_chain_get_driver_name, @@ -215,6 +227,7 @@ const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_chain_ops = { .enable_signaling = dma_fence_chain_enable_signaling, .signaled = dma_fence_chain_signaled, .release = dma_fence_chain_release,
.set_deadline = dma_fence_chain_set_deadline,}; EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_chain_ops);
-- 2.31.1
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch