On Thu, 2025-05-22 at 14:06 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> On 5/22/25 13:25, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > dma_fence_is_signaled_locked(), which is used in
> > nouveau_fence_context_kill(), can signal fences below the surface
> > through a callback.
> >
> > There is neither need for nor use in doing that when killing a
> > fence
> > context.
> >
> > Replace dma_fence_is_signaled_locked() with
> > __dma_fence_is_signaled(), a
> > function which only checks, never signals.
>
> That is not a good approach.
>
> Having the __dma_fence_is_signaled() means that other would be
> allowed to call it as well.
>
> But nouveau can do that here only because it knows that the fence was
> issued by nouveau.
>
> What nouveau can to is to test the signaled flag directly, but that's
> what you try to avoid as well.
There's many parties who check the bit already.
And if Nouveau is allowed to do that, one can just as well provide a
wrapper for it.
That has the advantage of centralizing the responsibility and
documenting it.
P.
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <pha...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
> > index d5654e26d5bc..993b3dcb5db0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_fence.c
> > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ nouveau_fence_context_kill(struct
> > nouveau_fence_chan *fctx, int error)
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&fctx->lock, flags);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, tmp, &fctx->pending, head)
> > {
> > - if (error && !dma_fence_is_signaled_locked(&fence-
> > >base))
> > + if (error && !__dma_fence_is_signaled(&fence-
> > >base))
> > dma_fence_set_error(&fence->base, error);
> >
> > if (nouveau_fence_signal(fence))
>
