Re: [RFC 0/5] rework fences on struct sync_file

[Christian KÃnig]

Am 24.06.2016 um 15:17 schrieb Gustavo Padovan:
> Hi Christian,
>
> 2016-06-24 Christian KÃnig <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>:
>
> > Am 23.06.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Gustavo Padovan:
> > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This is an attempt to improve fence support on Sync File. The basic idea
> > > is to have only sync_file->fence and store all fences there, either as
> > > normal fences or fence_arrays. That way we can remove some potential
> > > duplication when using fence_array with sync_file: the duplication of the array
> > > of fences and the duplication of fence_add_callback() for all fences.
> > >
> > > Now when creating a new sync_file during the merge process sync_file_set_fence()
> > > will set sync_file->fence based on the number of fences for that sync_file. If
> > > there is more than one fence a fence_array is created. One important advantage
> > > approach is that we only add one fence callback now, no matter how many fences
> > > there are in a sync_file - the individual callbacks are added by fence_array.
> > >
> > > Two fence ops had to be created to help abstract the difference between handling
> > > fences and fences_arrays: .teardown() and .get_fences(). The former run needed
> > > on fence_array, and the latter just return a copy of all fences in the fence.
> > > I'm not so sure about adding those two, speacially .get_fences(). What do you
> > > think?
> > Clearly not a good idea to add this a fence ops, cause those are specialized
> > functions for only a certain fence implementation (the fence_array).
> Are you refering only to .get_fences()?

That comment was only for the get_fences() operation, but the teardown() 
callback looks very suspicious to me as well.

Can you explain once more why that should be necessary?

Regards,
Christian.

> > What you should do is try to cast the fence in your sync file using
> > to_fence_array() and then you can access the fences in the array.
> Yes, that seems a better idea I think. The initial idea was to abstract
> the difference as much as possible, but it doesn't seem really worth
> for .get_fences().
>
> 	Gustavo
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel