Re: [PATCH 3/4] dma-fence: Refactor signaling for manual invocation

["Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>]

Am 12.08.19 um 16:43 schrieb Chris Wilson:
> Quoting Koenig, Christian (2019-08-12 15:34:32)
>> Am 10.08.19 um 17:34 schrieb Chris Wilson:
>>> Move the duplicated code within dma-fence.c into the header for wider
>>> reuse. In the process apply a small micro-optimisation to only prune the
>>> fence->cb_list once rather than use list_del on every entry.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/dma-buf/Makefile                    |  10 +-
>>>    drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-trace.c           |  28 +++
>>>    drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c                 |  33 +--
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_breadcrumbs.c |  32 +--
>>>    include/linux/dma-fence-impl.h              |  83 +++++++
>>>    include/linux/dma-fence-types.h             | 258 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    include/linux/dma-fence.h                   | 228 +----------------
>> Mhm, I don't really see the value in creating more header files.
>>
>> Especially I'm pretty sure that the types should stay in dma-fence.h
> iirc, when I included the trace.h from dma-fence.h or dma-fence-impl.h
> without separating the types, amdgpu failed to compile (which is more
> than likely to be simply due to be first drm in the list to compile).

Ah, but why do you want to include trace.h in a header in the first place?

That's usually not something I would recommend either.

Christian.

>
> Doing more work wasn't through choice.
> -Chris

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel