Hi Christian, 2016-06-24 Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>: > Am 23.06.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Gustavo Padovan: > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi all, > > > > This is an attempt to improve fence support on Sync File. The basic idea > > is to have only sync_file->fence and store all fences there, either as > > normal fences or fence_arrays. That way we can remove some potential > > duplication when using fence_array with sync_file: the duplication of the array > > of fences and the duplication of fence_add_callback() for all fences. > > > > Now when creating a new sync_file during the merge process sync_file_set_fence() > > will set sync_file->fence based on the number of fences for that sync_file. If > > there is more than one fence a fence_array is created. One important advantage > > approach is that we only add one fence callback now, no matter how many fences > > there are in a sync_file - the individual callbacks are added by fence_array. > > > > Two fence ops had to be created to help abstract the difference between handling > > fences and fences_arrays: .teardown() and .get_fences(). The former run needed > > on fence_array, and the latter just return a copy of all fences in the fence. > > I'm not so sure about adding those two, speacially .get_fences(). What do you > > think? > > Clearly not a good idea to add this a fence ops, cause those are specialized > functions for only a certain fence implementation (the fence_array). Are you refering only to .get_fences()? > > What you should do is try to cast the fence in your sync file using > to_fence_array() and then you can access the fences in the array. Yes, that seems a better idea I think. The initial idea was to abstract the difference as much as possible, but it doesn't seem really worth for .get_fences(). Gustavo _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
