On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:29 PM Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 27.07.21 um 13:09 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > Adding a few more people to this bikeshed. > > > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 10:02 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> @@ -349,6 +367,13 @@ int drm_sched_job_init(struct drm_sched_job *job, > >> struct drm_sched_entity *entity, > >> void *owner); > >> void drm_sched_job_arm(struct drm_sched_job *job); > >> +int drm_sched_job_await_fence(struct drm_sched_job *job, > >> + struct dma_fence *fence); > >> +int drm_sched_job_await_implicit(struct drm_sched_job *job, > >> + struct drm_gem_object *obj, > >> + bool write); > >> + > >> + > > I'm still waiting on the paint delivery for these two functions so I > > can finish this shed. > > Well I wouldn't call that bike shedding, good names are important. > > Just imaging we would have called the exclusive-fence write-fence instead. Sure naming matters, but at least to my English understanding there's not a semantic different between telling something to await for something else (i.e. add a dependency) or to tell something to add a dependency (i.e. await that thing later on before you start doing your own thing). Exclusive vs write fence otoh is a pretty big difference in what it means. But also if there's consensus that I'm wrong then I'm happy to pick the more preferred of the two options I deem equivalent. > What speaks against calling them add_dependency() and > _add_implicit_depencencies() ? Nothing. I just like another ack on this before I rename it all. Also I wasnt sure what you'd want to name the implicit dependency thing. Lucas, Boris, Melissa, any acks here? -Daniel > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Thanks, Daniel > > > >> void drm_sched_entity_modify_sched(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, > >> struct drm_gpu_scheduler **sched_list, > >> unsigned int num_sched_list); > >> -- > >> 2.32.0 > >> > > > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
