|
why? is there a design doc mentioned for this on reservation ? From: Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 4:03:39 PM To: Liu, Monk; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf/reservation: should keep the new fence in add_shared_inplace NAK, the newly added fence must always be newer than the existing one.
Christian. Am 06.03.2018 um 04:09 schrieb Monk Liu: > Change-Id: If6a979ba9fd6c923b82212f35f07a9ff31c86767 > Signed-off-by: Monk Liu <Monk.Liu@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c > index 314eb10..29b7e45 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ reservation_object_add_shared_inplace(struct reservation_object *obj, > old_fence = rcu_dereference_protected(fobj->shared[i], > reservation_object_held(obj)); > > - if (old_fence->context == fence->context) { > + if (dma_fence_is_later(fence, old_fence)) { > /* memory barrier is added by write_seqcount_begin */ > RCU_INIT_POINTER(fobj->shared[i], fence); > write_seqcount_end(&obj->seq); |
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
