Re: [RFC v2 1/8] dma-buf/fence: add fence_collection fences

[Gustavo Padovan]

2016-04-26 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 07:33:21PM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > +static const char *fence_collection_get_timeline_name(struct fence *fence)
> > +{
> > +	return "no context";
> 
> "unbound" to distinguish from fence contexts within a timeline?
> 
> > +static bool fence_collection_enable_signaling(struct fence *fence)
> > +{
> > +	struct fence_collection *collection = to_fence_collection(fence);
> > +	int i;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0 ; i < collection->num_fences ; i++) {
> > +		if (fence_add_callback(collection->fences[i].fence,
> > +				       &collection->fences[i].cb,
> > +				       collection_check_cb_func)) {
> > +			atomic_dec(&collection->num_pending_fences);
> > +			return false;
> 
> Don't stop, we need to enable all the others!
> 
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return !!atomic_read(&collection->num_pending_fences);
> 
> Redundant !!
> 
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool fence_collection_signaled(struct fence *fence)
> > +{
> > +	struct fence_collection *collection = to_fence_collection(fence);
> > +
> > +	return (atomic_read(&collection->num_pending_fences) == 0);
> 
> Redundant ()
> 
> > +static signed long fence_collection_wait(struct fence *fence, bool intr,
> > +					 signed long timeout)
> > +{
> 
> What advantage does this have over fence_default_wait? You enable
> signaling on all, then wait sequentially. The code looks redundant and
> could just use fence_default_wait instead.

None actually, I'll just replace it with fence_default_wait().

	Gustavo