On 14 April 2017 at 19:45, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: >> This set of sync object patches should address most of the issues >> raised in review. >> >> The major changes: >> Race on destroy should be gone, >> Documentation fixups >> amdgpu internal use p instead of adev fixups >> >> My plans are to write some igt tests this week, and try >> to get some more review on what the API should allow (should >> I lock it down to drm syncobj is just semaphores for now). > > Having an idr of handles is much, much nicer than fd and I want the same > for fences :) Okay, but what form do you want the API to take for fences? because I've just ported all this to using sem_file as the backend, instead of sync_file which seems to oppose the goal of using it for fences. For fences do you want upfront creation, then passing created fences object into command submission that attach the internal fence? Or do you want command submission to have out fence handles that it creates, so we don't have any explicit syncobj create for fences? Do you want those fences to be shareable across processes using sync_file semantics? I kinda feel like I'm going around in circles here and I'm going to just merge something instead. Dave.
