Am 24.09.24 um 11:51 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxx>
While loop makes it sound like amdgpu_vmid_grab() potentially needs to be
called multiple times to produce a fence, while in reality all code paths
either return an error, assign a valid job->vmid or assign a vmid which
will be valid once the returned fence signals.
Therefore we can remove the loop to make it clear the call does not need
to be repeated.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Oh yeah that's a leftover from when we still had the dependency handling
inside all this.
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> for the whole
series.
---
I stared for a good while, going back and forth, and couldn't see that the
while loop is needed. But maybe I missed something?
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
index d11cb0ad8c49..85f10b59d09c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
@@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ amdgpu_job_prepare_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job,
if (job->gang_submit)
fence = amdgpu_device_switch_gang(ring->adev, job->gang_submit);
- while (!fence && job->vm && !job->vmid) {
+ if (!fence && job->vm && !job->vmid) {
r = amdgpu_vmid_grab(job->vm, ring, job, &fence);
if (r) {
dev_err(ring->adev->dev, "Error getting VM ID (%d)\n", r);
