On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 10:15:01AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 02:04:44PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 03/01/2017 11:05, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > As the fence->status is an optional field that may be set before > > > dma_fence_signal() is called to convey that the fence completed with an > > > error, we have to ensure that it is always set to zero on initialisation > > > so that the typical use (i.e. unset) always flags a successful completion. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > > index 3444f293ad4a..9130f790ebf3 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > > @@ -534,6 +534,7 @@ dma_fence_init(struct dma_fence *fence, const struct dma_fence_ops *ops, > > > fence->context = context; > > > fence->seqno = seqno; > > > fence->flags = 0UL; > > > + fence->status = 0; > > > > > > trace_dma_fence_init(fence); > > > } > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Looking at existing users there's only the sync_file stuff. And that gets > it wrong, because afaics no one ever sets fence->status to anything > useful. But sync_file blindly assumes it's correct. In terms of doc, sync_file is using it correctly, and dma-fence isn't living up to its doc. The documented behaviour (sync_file) seems useful. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
