From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751817AbcFXOOY (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:14:24 -0400 Received: from pegasos-out.vodafone.de ([80.84.1.38]:48330 "EHLO pegasos-out.vodafone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751776AbcFXOOX (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:14:23 -0400 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.2 Authentication-Results: rohrpostix1.prod.vfnet.de (amavisd-new); dkim=pass header.i=@vodafone.de X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.8 pegasos-out.vodafone.de 7A908261A8B Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] rework fences on struct sync_file To: Gustavo Padovan , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, marcheu@google.com, Daniel Stone , seanpaul@google.com, Daniel Vetter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, Gustavo Padovan , John Harrison , m.chehab@samsung.com References: <1466695790-2833-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <576CFD0B.6000501@amd.com> <20160624131724.GA2503@joana> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= Message-ID: <576D4032.3000001@vodafone.de> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:14:10 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160624131724.GA2503@joana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 24.06.2016 um 15:17 schrieb Gustavo Padovan: > Hi Christian, > > 2016-06-24 Christian König : > >> Am 23.06.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Gustavo Padovan: >>> From: Gustavo Padovan >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is an attempt to improve fence support on Sync File. The basic idea >>> is to have only sync_file->fence and store all fences there, either as >>> normal fences or fence_arrays. That way we can remove some potential >>> duplication when using fence_array with sync_file: the duplication of the array >>> of fences and the duplication of fence_add_callback() for all fences. >>> >>> Now when creating a new sync_file during the merge process sync_file_set_fence() >>> will set sync_file->fence based on the number of fences for that sync_file. If >>> there is more than one fence a fence_array is created. One important advantage >>> approach is that we only add one fence callback now, no matter how many fences >>> there are in a sync_file - the individual callbacks are added by fence_array. >>> >>> Two fence ops had to be created to help abstract the difference between handling >>> fences and fences_arrays: .teardown() and .get_fences(). The former run needed >>> on fence_array, and the latter just return a copy of all fences in the fence. >>> I'm not so sure about adding those two, speacially .get_fences(). What do you >>> think? >> Clearly not a good idea to add this a fence ops, cause those are specialized >> functions for only a certain fence implementation (the fence_array). > Are you refering only to .get_fences()? That comment was only for the get_fences() operation, but the teardown() callback looks very suspicious to me as well. Can you explain once more why that should be necessary? Regards, Christian. > >> What you should do is try to cast the fence in your sync file using >> to_fence_array() and then you can access the fences in the array. > Yes, that seems a better idea I think. The initial idea was to abstract > the difference as much as possible, but it doesn't seem really worth > for .get_fences(). > > Gustavo > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel