On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:47:58AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> index 1b4cb3e5cec9..736a9ad3ea6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> @@ -208,6 +208,18 @@ static void dma_fence_chain_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
> dma_fence_free(fence);
> }
>
> +
> +static void dma_fence_chain_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence,
> + ktime_t deadline)
> +{
> + dma_fence_chain_for_each(fence, fence) {
> + struct dma_fence_chain *chain = to_dma_fence_chain(fence);
> + struct dma_fence *f = chain ? chain->fence : fence;
Doesn't this just end up calling set_deadline on a chain, potenetially
resulting in recursion? Also I don't think this should ever happen, why
did you add that?
-Daniel
> +
> + dma_fence_set_deadline(f, deadline);
> + }
> +}
> +
> const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_chain_ops = {
> .use_64bit_seqno = true,
> .get_driver_name = dma_fence_chain_get_driver_name,
> @@ -215,6 +227,7 @@ const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_chain_ops = {
> .enable_signaling = dma_fence_chain_enable_signaling,
> .signaled = dma_fence_chain_signaled,
> .release = dma_fence_chain_release,
> + .set_deadline = dma_fence_chain_set_deadline,
> };
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_chain_ops);
>
> --
> 2.31.1
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
