Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2020-06-25 14:23:25) > On 25/06/2020 16:18, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2020-06-25 13:34:43) > >> There was probably a misunderstand on how the dma-fence-chain is > >> supposed to work or what dma_fence_chain_find_seqno() is supposed to > >> return. > >> > >> dma_fence_chain_find_seqno() is here to give us the fence to wait upon > >> for a particular point in the timeline. The timeline progresses only > >> when all the points prior to a given number have completed. > > Hmm, the question was what point is it supposed to wait for. > > > > For the simple chain of [1, 3], does 1 being signaled imply that all > > points up to 3 are signaled, or does 3 not being signaled imply that all > > points after 1 are not. If that's mentioned already somewhere, my bad. > > If not, could you put the answer somewhere. > > -Chris > > In [1, 3], if 1 is signaled, the timeline value is 1. And find_seqno(2) > should return NULL. > > > In the out_of_order selftest the chain was [1, 2, 3], 2 was signaled and > the test was expecting no fence to be returned by find_seqno(2). > > But we still have to wait on 1 to complete before find_seqno(2) can > return NULL (as in you don't have to wait on anything). * scratches head I thought it was meant to be expecting fc.chain[1] to still be present as the chain at that point was not yet signaled. Oh well, a mistake compounded. :| -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
