Re: [PATCH 1/9] dma-buf: add dma_fence_was_initialized function v2

[Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>]

On 14. 07. 26, 10:43, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-07-14 at 09:53 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>> On Mon, 2026-07-13 at 10:58 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 20. 01. 26, 11:54, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Some driver use fence->ops to test if a fence was initialized or not.
>>>> The problem is that this utilizes internal behavior of the dma_fence
>>>> implementation.
>>>>
>>>> So better abstract that into a function.
>>>>
>>>> v2: use a flag instead of testing fence->ops, rename the function, move
>>>>       to the beginning of the patch set.
>>> ...
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_release.c
>>>> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ qxl_release_free(struct qxl_device *qdev,
>>>>    	idr_remove(&qdev->release_idr, release->id);
>>>>    	spin_unlock(&qdev->release_idr_lock);
>>>>    
>>>> -	if (release->base.ops) {
>>>> +	if (dma_fence_was_initialized(&release->base)) {
>>
>> Could you verify the cause with sth like
>>
>> if (release->base.ops && dma_fence_was_initialized(…)) {
> 
> Forget about that, probably would not work or cause other issues
> because the NULL-setting on signal().
> 
> I'd then probably try to verify it with a separate boolean in struct
> release. Though I also don't get why the fence-initialized check does
> not do the trick.

Hi, have you come up with something yet?

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs