On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:30:23AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What I liked was doing > > > > if (fd2 < 0) > > return dup(fd1); > > > > if (fd1 < 0) > > return dup(fd2); > > > > That makes accumulating the fences in the caller much easier (i.e. they > > start with > > batch.fence_in = -1; > > then > > batch.fence_in = sync_merge(batch.fence_in, fence); > > note that if you don't want to leak fd's you'd have to do something more like: > > int new_fence = sync_merge(batch->fence_in, fence); > if (batch->fence_in != -1) > close(batch->fence_in); > batch->fence_in = new_fence; Hmm. so I thought the ioctl was closing the input. > so it isn't *that* much better.. I guess you could do the close() > unconditionally and ignore the error if batch->fence_in==-1.. Yup, realised after writing that a bit more on the input side is required. if (fd2 < 0) return fd1; if (fd1 < 0) return dup(fd2); ret = ioctl(); if (ret < 0) return fd1; close(fd1); return result.fence; Which discards the synchronisation on the new fence if there's an error, are we meant to flag a GL_ERROR? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
