On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:54 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:47:58AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> > index 1b4cb3e5cec9..736a9ad3ea6d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-chain.c
> > @@ -208,6 +208,18 @@ static void dma_fence_chain_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > dma_fence_free(fence);
> > }
> >
> > +
> > +static void dma_fence_chain_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence,
> > + ktime_t deadline)
> > +{
> > + dma_fence_chain_for_each(fence, fence) {
> > + struct dma_fence_chain *chain = to_dma_fence_chain(fence);
> > + struct dma_fence *f = chain ? chain->fence : fence;
>
> Doesn't this just end up calling set_deadline on a chain, potenetially
> resulting in recursion? Also I don't think this should ever happen, why
> did you add that?
Tbh the fence-chain was the part I was a bit fuzzy about, and the main
reason I added igt tests. The iteration is similar to how, for ex,
dma_fence_chain_signaled() work, and according to the igt test it does
what was intended
BR,
-R
> -Daniel
>
> > +
> > + dma_fence_set_deadline(f, deadline);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_chain_ops = {
> > .use_64bit_seqno = true,
> > .get_driver_name = dma_fence_chain_get_driver_name,
> > @@ -215,6 +227,7 @@ const struct dma_fence_ops dma_fence_chain_ops = {
> > .enable_signaling = dma_fence_chain_enable_signaling,
> > .signaled = dma_fence_chain_signaled,
> > .release = dma_fence_chain_release,
> > + .set_deadline = dma_fence_chain_set_deadline,
> > };
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_chain_ops);
> >
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
