On 2016-09-15 02:46 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:04:30AM -0400, robert.foss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:+void sw_sync_timeline_inc(int fd, uint32_t count) +{ + uint32_t arg = count; + + if (fd == 0) + return;But fd = 0 is a valid fd, and might be a timeline somewhere. Did you mean count == 0 ? And even then (unless it is defined as an error condition in the kernel ABI, and it should not be...) we should pass it through to the kernel.
You're right, I'll change it in v5.
+ do_ioctl(fd, SW_SYNC_IOC_INC, &arg); +} ++int sw_sync_wait(int fence, int timeout) +{ + struct pollfd fds; + int ret; + + fds.fd = fence; + fds.events = POLLIN | POLLERR;POLLERR is always implied and doesn't need to be specified (it is meaningless in .events). int sw_sync_wait(int fence, int timeout) { #if BEING_FANCY return poll(&(struct pollfd){fd, POLLIN}, 1, timeout); #else struct pollfd pfd = { fd, POLLIN }; return poll(&pfd, 1, timeout); #endif } Indentation has gone wrong, double check the whitespace.
That is definitely nicer looking. I'll drop it in for v5.
How do fences operate after their timeline is closed? (Are they automatically signaled, or do they persist and are signaled normally?) Is there a test for using fences from a closed timeline (I was looking but didn't notice one).
I did some quick tests just to confirm, closing the timeline signals all of its fences.
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
