On 31/07/2020 17:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2020-07-31 14:45:52)
Introduces a new parameters to execbuf so that we can specify syncobj
handles as well as timeline points.
v2: Reuse i915_user_extension_fn
v3: Check that the chained extension is only present once (Chris)
v4: Check that dma_fence_chain_find_seqno returns a non NULL fence (Lionel)
v5: Use BIT_ULL (Chris)
v6: Fix issue with already signaled timeline points,
dma_fence_chain_find_seqno() setting fence to NULL (Chris)
v7: Report ENOENT with invalid syncobj handle (Lionel)
v8: Check for out of order timeline point insertion (Chris)
v9: After explanations on
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2019-August/229287.html
drop the ordering check from v8 (Lionel)
v10: Set first extension enum item to 1 (Jason)
The other unaddressed issue here is that we do not need to arbitrarily
limit the caller to only a single extension. The code to handle multiple
invocations is actually smaller...
-Chris
You mean an application could send multiple
DRM_I915_GEM_EXECBUFFER_EXT_TIMELINE_FENCES items in the chain of
extensions?
That's somewhat different than how the current fences are handled.
If other extension want to support that, that's up to them.
We don't have any use for multiple arrays of timeline fences for a given
execbuf in our userspace driver.
-Lionel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
