2016-12-13 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com>:
> Hi,
>
> > +struct virtio_gpu_fence *virtio_gpu_fence_alloc(struct virtio_gpu_device
> > *vgdev)
> > +{
> > + struct virtio_gpu_fence_driver *drv = &vgdev->fence_drv;
> > + struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence;
> > + unsigned long irq_flags;
> > +
> > + fence = kmalloc(sizeof(struct virtio_gpu_fence), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (!fence)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
>
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&drv->lock, irq_flags);
> > + fence->drv = drv;
> > + fence->seq = ++drv->sync_seq;
> > + dma_fence_init(&fence->f, &virtio_fence_ops, &drv->lock,
> > + drv->context, fence->seq);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&drv->lock, irq_flags);
>
> seq assignment ...
>
> > +
> > + return fence;
> > +}
> > +
> > int virtio_gpu_fence_emit(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
> > struct virtio_gpu_ctrl_hdr *cmd_hdr,
> > - struct virtio_gpu_fence **fence)
> > + struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence)
> > {
> > struct virtio_gpu_fence_driver *drv = &vgdev->fence_drv;
> > unsigned long irq_flags;
> >
> > - *fence = kmalloc(sizeof(struct virtio_gpu_fence), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > - if ((*fence) == NULL)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&drv->lock, irq_flags);
> > - (*fence)->drv = drv;
> > - (*fence)->seq = ++drv->sync_seq;
> > - dma_fence_init(&(*fence)->f, &virtio_fence_ops, &drv->lock,
> > - drv->context, (*fence)->seq);
>
> ... must stay here. Otherwise requests can be submitted to the virt
> queue with fence sequence numbers out of order.
Yes, makes sense. So I'll just leave the kmalloc in there.
Gustavo
