Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Increment composite fence seqno

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com> wrote:
> Increment composite fence seqno on each fence creation.
>
> Fixes: 544460c33821 ("drm/i915: Multi-BB execbuf")
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> index 2213f7b613da..96cf8361b017 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -3113,7 +3113,7 @@ eb_composite_fence_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb, int out_fence_fd)
>  	fence_array = dma_fence_array_create(eb->num_batches,
>  					     fences,
>  					     eb->context->parallel.fence_context,
> -					     eb->context->parallel.seqno,
> +					     eb->context->parallel.seqno++,
>  					     false);
>  	if (!fence_array) {
>  		kfree(fences);

I have no idea what's going on, but the feeling I get from "code smells"
just in this small snippet is that the seqno++ does not take the error
path here into account.


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center