Hey Dmitry,
On 2023/03/24, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Move virtio_gpu_execbuffer_ioctl() into separate virtgpu_submit.c file
> and refactor the code along the way to ease addition of new features to
> the ioctl.
>
At a glance, we have a handful of no-op as well as some functional
changes - let's split those up in separate patches.
> Reviewed-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> +static int virtio_gpu_dma_fence_wait(struct virtio_gpu_submit *submit,
> + struct dma_fence *fence)
> +{
> + struct dma_fence_unwrap itr;
> + struct dma_fence *f;
> + int err;
> +
> + dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(f, &itr, fence) {
The dma_fence_unwrap_for_each() change should be a separate patch,
highlighting why we want it.
> + err = virtio_gpu_do_fence_wait(submit, f);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> + ret = virtio_gpu_init_submit(&submit, exbuf, dev, file,
> + fence_ctx, ring_idx);
> + if (ret)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
> + ret = virtio_gpu_wait_in_fence(&submit);
> + if (ret)
> + goto cleanup;
> +
We have reshuffled the order around in_fence waiting, out_fence install,
handles, cmdbuf, drm events, etc. Can we get that split up a bit, with
some comments.
If it were me, I would keep the wait_in_fence early and inline
virtio_gpu_init_submit (the nesting/abstraction seems a bit much). This
means one can omit the virtio_gpu_submit::exbuf all together.
HTH
Emil
