> > Well, to make it clear once more: Signaling a dma_fence from the > destructor of a reference counted object is very problematic! This will > be rejected no matter if you do that in C or in Rust. > > What we can do is to make it safe in the sense that you don't access > freed up memory by using the scheduler fences even more as wrapper > around the hardware fence as we do now. But this quite a change and > requires a bit more than just hacking around > drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name(). I really think this needs to be documented if nothing else out of this thread. Clearly nobody is going to get it right and hidden here in this thread, this info isn't useful. Can we have some sort of design document for the dma-fence/scheduler interactions written and we can try and refine it with solutions on the list, because I'm tired of people proposing things and NAK's getting thrown around without anything to point people at. The next NAK I see on the list will mean I block all patches from the sender until they write a documentation patch, because seriously this stuff is too hard for someone to just keep it in their head and expect everyone else to understand from reading the code. Dave.
