[PATCH] dma-buf/reservation: should keep the new fence in add_shared_inplace

[Liu, Monk]

why? is there a design doc mentioned for this on reservation ?

________________________________
From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 4:03:39 PM
To: Liu, Monk; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf/reservation: should keep the new fence in add_shared_inplace

NAK, the newly added fence must always be newer than the existing one.

Christian.

Am 06.03.2018 um 04:09 schrieb Monk Liu:
> Change-Id: If6a979ba9fd6c923b82212f35f07a9ff31c86767
> Signed-off-by: Monk Liu <Monk.Liu at amd.com>
> ---
>   drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
> index 314eb10..29b7e45 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ reservation_object_add_shared_inplace(struct reservation_object *obj,
>                old_fence = rcu_dereference_protected(fobj->shared[i],
>                                                reservation_object_held(obj));
>
> -             if (old_fence->context == fence->context) {
> +             if (dma_fence_is_later(fence, old_fence)) {
>                        /* memory barrier is added by write_seqcount_begin */
>                        RCU_INIT_POINTER(fobj->shared[i], fence);
>                        write_seqcount_end(&obj->seq);

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20180306/1d3eb026/attachment-0001.html>