From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933171AbdKQNIP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:08:15 -0500
Received: from mail-qt0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182]:36586 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751312AbdKQNIH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:08:07 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaZ5FP6QlllqmwuPYx5tQK9c8D4gZ1Lw/X3xct/XiAcz49wpxp7K2qu+1ZFiodlH0byEDkw2g==
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:08:01 -0200
From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org>, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
        Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>, Pawel Osciak <pawel@osciak.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>,
        Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>,
        Thierry Escande <thierry.escande@collabora.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 07/11] [media] vb2: add in-fence support to QBUF
Message-ID: <20171117130801.GH19033@jade>
References: <20171115171057.17340-1-gustavo@padovan.org>
 <20171115171057.17340-8-gustavo@padovan.org>
 <422c5326-374b-487f-9ef1-594f239438f1@chromium.org>
 <20171117110025.2a49db49@vento.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171117110025.2a49db49@vento.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2017-11-17 Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>:

> Em Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:49:23 +0900
> Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@chromium.org> escreveu:
> 
> > > @@ -178,6 +179,12 @@ static int vb2_queue_or_prepare_buf(struct 
> > > vb2_queue *q, struct v4l2_buffer *b,
> > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	if ((b->fence_fd != 0 && b->fence_fd != -1) &&  
> > 
> > Why do we need to consider both values invalid? Can 0 ever be a valid fence 
> > fd?
> 
> Programs that don't use fences will initialize reserved2/fence_fd field
> at the uAPI call to zero.
> 
> So, I guess using fd=0 here could be a problem. Anyway, I would, instead,
> do:
> 
> 	if ((b->fence_fd < 1) &&
> 		...
> 
> as other negative values are likely invalid as well.

We are checking when the fence_fd is set but the flag wasn't. Checking
for < 1 is exactly the opposite. so we keep as is or do it fence_fd > 0.

Gustavo