Explicitly document that code can't assume that shared fences
signal after the exclusive fence.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
index f26c71747d43..4ab02b6c387a 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
@@ -235,7 +235,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_resv_reset_shared_max);
* @fence: the shared fence to add
*
* Add a fence to a shared slot, obj->lock must be held, and
- * dma_resv_reserve_shared() has been called.
+ * dma_resv_reserve_shared() has been called. The shared fences can signal in
+ * any order and there is especially no guarantee that shared fences signal
+ * after the exclusive one. Code relying on any signaling order is broken and
+ * needs to be fixed.
*/
void dma_resv_add_shared_fence(struct dma_resv *obj, struct dma_fence *fence)
{
--
2.25.1
