On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Koenig, Christian
<Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 17.10.18 um 11:17 schrieb zhoucm1:
> > [SNIP]
> >>> +struct drm_syncobj_signal_pt {
> >>> + struct dma_fence_array *base;
> >> Out of curiosity, why the pointer and not embedding? base is kinda
> >> misleading for a pointer.
> > Yeah, Christian doesn't like signal_pt lifecycle same as fence, so
> > it's a pointer.
> > If you don't like 'base' name, I can change it.
>
> Well I never said that you can't embed the fence array into the signal_pt.
>
> You just need to make sure that we don't affect the drm_syncobj
> lilecycle as well, e.g. that we don't also need to keep that around.
I don't see a problem with that, as long as drm_syncobj keeps a
reference to the fence while it's on the timeline list. Which it
already does. And embedding would avoid that 2nd separate allocation,
aside from making base less confusing.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
