[PATCH] drm/syncobj: remove boring message
lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com
Thu Aug 1 13:45:13 UTC 2019
Just had a few exchanges with Chris about this.
Chris suggests that if we're about to add a point to the timeline in an
unordered fashion, actually better not add it at all.
What's your take on this?
I'm fine with this, but rather than add another variant of add_point()
maybe we change change the existing.
On 29/07/2019 11:20, Chunming Zhou wrote:
> It is normal that binary syncobj replaces the underlying fence.
> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou at amd.com>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
> index 929f7c64f9a2..bc7ec1679e4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
> @@ -151,9 +151,6 @@ void drm_syncobj_add_point(struct drm_syncobj *syncobj,
> prev = drm_syncobj_fence_get(syncobj);
> - /* You are adding an unorder point to timeline, which could cause payload returned from query_ioctl is 0! */
> - if (prev && prev->seqno >= point)
> - DRM_ERROR("You are adding an unorder point to timeline!\n");
> dma_fence_chain_init(chain, prev, fence, point);
> rcu_assign_pointer(syncobj->fence, &chain->base);
More information about the dri-devel