On 18/02/2023 21:15, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Propagate the deadline to all the fences in the chain.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> for this one.
---
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 a0d920576ba6..4684874af612 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
@@ -206,6 +206,18 @@ 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;
Low level comment - above two lines could be replaced with:
struct dma_fence *f = dma_fence_chain_contained(fence);
Although to be fair I am not sure that wouldn't be making it less
readable. From the point of view that fence might not be a chain, so
dma_fence_chain_contained() reads a bit dodgy as an API.
Regards,
Tvrtko
+
+ 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,
@@ -213,6 +225,7 @@ 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);
