Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-09-03 Thread Christian König
Am 02.09.21 um 16:42 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:02:40PM +0200, Christian König wrote: That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather risky and not defensive at all. Especially dma_buf_poll got that horrible wrong, so better remove that sentence and also clarif

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-09-02 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:02:40PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather > risky and not defensive at all. > > Especially dma_buf_poll got that horrible wrong, so better > remove that sentence and also clarify that the callback > might be called

[PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-09-01 Thread Christian König
That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather risky and not defensive at all. Especially dma_buf_poll got that horrible wrong, so better remove that sentence and also clarify that the callback might be called in atomic or interrupt context. Signed-off-by: Christian König --- driver

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Christian König
Am 21.07.21 um 16:37 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:57 PM Christian König wrote: Am 21.07.21 um 15:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:18 PM Christian König wrote: Am 21.07.21 um 13:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Christi

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:57 PM Christian König wrote: > Am 21.07.21 um 15:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:18 PM Christian König > > wrote: > >> Am 21.07.21 um 13:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > >>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > That t

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Christian König
Am 21.07.21 um 15:36 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:18 PM Christian König wrote: Am 21.07.21 um 13:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Christian König wrote: That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather risky and not defensive at

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:18 PM Christian König wrote: > Am 21.07.21 um 13:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >> That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather > >> risky and not defensive at all. > >> > >> Especially dma_bu

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Christian König
Am 21.07.21 um 13:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Christian König wrote: That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather risky and not defensive at all. Especially dma_buf_poll got that horrible wrong, so better remove that sentence and also cla

Re: [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Christian König wrote: > That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather > risky and not defensive at all. > > Especially dma_buf_poll got that horrible wrong, so better > remove that sentence and also clarify that the callback > might be called

[PATCH 2/2] dma-buf: clarify dma_fence_add_callback documentation

2021-07-21 Thread Christian König
That the caller doesn't need to keep a reference is rather risky and not defensive at all. Especially dma_buf_poll got that horrible wrong, so better remove that sentence and also clarify that the callback might be called in atomic or interrupt context. Signed-off-by: Christian König --- driver