On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 04:35:55PM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote: > > On 1/17/2022 1:35 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:34 AM Iouri Tarassov > > <iourit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > btw another idea I had over the w/e: Another option might be to allow > > different backends for sync_file, and then making sure that you cannot > > ever mix dma_fence and hv_dxg_fence type sync_file up (in e.g. the > > merge ioctl). > > > > The issue is that fundamentally dma_fence and memory fences (or umf > > for userspace memory fences as we tend to call them) aren't > > compatible, but some of the interop plans we have is to allow stuffing > > either of them into fence container objects like sync_file. So going > > that route for wddm monitored fence support too could be a really > > future-proof approach, plus it'd allow you to still share the > > sync_file interface code. Not that it's going to be much code sharing, > > since all the implementation code needs to be distinct. > > -Daniel > > Thanks Daniel! > > I will remove the patch for dxgsyncfile from the next set of upstream > patches. > > It will be added later after a re-design. Yeah sounds like a good plan forward to not hold up everything else meanwhile. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
