2016-04-26 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:33:21PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > struct fence_collection inherits from struct fence and carries a > > collection of fences that needs to be waited together. > > > > It is useful to translate a sync_file to a fence to remove the complexity > > of dealing with sync_files on DRM drivers. So even if there are many > > fences in the sync_file that needs to waited for a commit to happen, > > they all get added to the fence_collection and passed for DRM use as > > a standard struct fence. > > > > That means that no changes needed to any driver besides supporting fences. > > > > fence_collection's fence doesn't belong to any timeline context, so > > fence_is_later() and fence_later() are not meant to be called with > > fence_collections fences. > > > > v2: Comments by Daniel Vetter: > > - merge fence_collection_init() and fence_collection_add() > > - only add callbacks at ->enable_signalling() > > - remove fence_collection_put() > > - check for type on to_fence_collection() > > - adjust fence_is_later() and fence_later() to WARN_ON() if they > > are used with collection fences. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > FENCE_NO_CONTEXT semantics needs an ack from amdgpu maintainers. I'm not > entirely sure they might not hit the new WARN_ON by accident now. Please > cc Alex Deucher & Christian König. Sure, I'll Cc then in the revision. But if they use fence_context_alloc() to get the context they should never hit any WARN_ON as context numbers now starts at 1. 0 is reserved for FENCE_NO_CONTEXT. Gustavo _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
