On 4 August 2017 at 02:25, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > Quoting Dave Airlie (2017-05-12 01:34:55) >> @@ -385,6 +434,13 @@ drm_syncobj_fd_to_handle_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, >> if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_SYNCOBJ)) >> return -ENODEV; >> >> + if (args->flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_FD_TO_HANDLE_FLAGS_IMPORT_SYNC_FILE_FENCE) >> + return drm_syncobj_import_sync_file_fence(file_private, >> + args->fd, >> + args->handle); >> + else if (args->flags) >> + return -EINVAL; > > Argh, what I missed before was that importing from a sync_file reuses > the handle, but importing from a syncobj fd creates a new handle. > > Just venting my ocd. It would be nice if the interface was consistent, > and I can see arguments for both approaches (just not a good argument as > to why they should differ). A compromise would be a flag to create/reuse > handle (or if handle=0, create, if handle!=0 resuse). The interface is consistent for the objects. With a sync_fd import you import the state into an existing syncobj. With a syncobj import you import the object into the current process state (so get a new handle). I can't think of a use case for anything else, maybe having a sync_fd state imported into a new syncobj? but not sure it really helps. Userspace should be using different paths to get to these interfaces. Dave.
