[PATCH] dma-fence: Make dma_fence_add_callback() fail if signaled with error

[Gustavo Padovan]

Hi Ezequiel,

On Wed, 2018-05-09 at 17:14 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> Change how dma_fence_add_callback() behaves, when the fence
> has error-signaled by the time it is being add. After this commit,
> dma_fence_add_callback() returns the fence error, if it
> has error-signaled before dma_fence_add_callback() is called.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel at collabora.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-
> fence.c
> index 4edb9fd3cf47..298b440c5b68 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> @@ -226,7 +226,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_enable_sw_signaling);
>   *
>   * Note that the callback can be called from an atomic context.  If
>   * fence is already signaled, this function will return -ENOENT (and
> - * *not* call the callback)
> + * *not* call the callback). If the fence is error-signaled, this
> + * function returns the fence error.
>   *
>   * Add a software callback to the fence. Same restrictions apply to
>   * refcount as it does to dma_fence_wait, however the caller doesn't
> need to
> @@ -235,8 +236,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_enable_sw_signaling);
>   * after it signals with dma_fence_signal. The callback itself can
> be called
>   * from irq context.
>   *
> - * Returns 0 in case of success, -ENOENT if the fence is already
> signaled
> - * and -EINVAL in case of error.
> + * Returns 0 in case of success, -ENOENT (or the error value) if the
> fence is
> + * already signaled and -EINVAL in case of error.
>   */
>  int dma_fence_add_callback(struct dma_fence *fence, struct
> dma_fence_cb *cb,
>  			   dma_fence_func_t func)
> @@ -250,7 +251,8 @@ int dma_fence_add_callback(struct dma_fence
> *fence, struct dma_fence_cb *cb,
>  
>  	if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &fence->flags)) {
>  		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cb->node);
> -		return -ENOENT;
> +		ret = (fence->error < 0) ? fence->error : -ENOENT;
> +		return ret;
>  	}

It looks good to me, but I'd first go check all place we call it in the
kernel because I have some memory of callers relying on the -ENOENT
return code for some decision. I might be wrong though.

Regards,

Gustavo