Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

Hi Philipp, On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +0200 Philipp Stanner wrote: > dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function were > intended for checking whether a fence is already signaled. Also the > boolean it returns hints at that. > > The function's behavior, however, is more

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 16:10 +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 09.04.25 um 16:01 schrieb Philipp Stanner: > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 15:14 +0200, Christian König wrote: > > > Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner: > > > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > > > On

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

Am 09.04.25 um 17:04 schrieb Philipp Stanner: > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 16:10 +0200, Christian König wrote: >>> I only see improvement by making things more obvious. >>> >>> In any case, how would you call a wrapper that just does >>> test_bit(IS_SIGNALED, …) ? >> Broken, that was very intentionally

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > On Wed,  9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +0200 > Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function > > were > > intended for checking whether a fence is already signaled. Also the > > boo

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 15:14 +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner: > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > Hi Philipp, > > > > > > > > On Wed,  9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

Am 09.04.25 um 16:01 schrieb Philipp Stanner: > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 15:14 +0200, Christian König wrote: >> Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner: >>> On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Philipp, >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

Am 09.04.25 um 14:56 schrieb Philipp Stanner: > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: >> On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> Hi Philipp, >>> >>> On Wed,  9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +0200 >>> Philipp Stanner wrote: >>> dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name stron

Re: [PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:51 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote: > On Wed, 2025-04-09 at 14:39 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Philipp, > > > > On Wed,  9 Apr 2025 14:06:37 +0200 > > Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > > > dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function > > > were > > >

[PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Rename dma_fence_is_signaled()

dma_fence_is_signaled()'s name strongly reads as if this function were intended for checking whether a fence is already signaled. Also the boolean it returns hints at that. The function's behavior, however, is more complex: it can check with a driver callback whether the hardware's sequence number