On 2018年10月17日 18:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
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.
That's indeed my initial implementation for signal_pt/wait_pt with fence
based, but after long and many discussions, we get current solution, as
you see, the version is up to v8 :).
For here why the pointer and not embedding?
Two reasons:
1. their lifecycles are not same.
2. It is a fence array usage, which always needs separate allocation,
seems which is mandatory.
So it is a pointer.
But the name is historical from initial, and indeed be kinda misleading
for a pointer, I will change it to fence_array instead in coming v9.
Thanks,
David Zhou
-Daniel
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
