[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/4] dma-fence: Refactor signaling for manual invocation

[Koenig, Christian]

Am 12.08.19 um 16:53 schrieb Chris Wilson:
> Quoting Koenig, Christian (2019-08-12 15:50:59)
>> Am 12.08.19 um 16:43 schrieb Chris Wilson:
>>> Quoting Koenig, Christian (2019-08-12 15:34:32)
>>>> Am 10.08.19 um 17:34 schrieb Chris Wilson:
>>>>> Move the duplicated code within dma-fence.c into the header for wider
>>>>> reuse. In the process apply a small micro-optimisation to only prune the
>>>>> fence->cb_list once rather than use list_del on every entry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/dma-buf/Makefile                    |  10 +-
>>>>>     drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-trace.c           |  28 +++
>>>>>     drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c                 |  33 +--
>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_breadcrumbs.c |  32 +--
>>>>>     include/linux/dma-fence-impl.h              |  83 +++++++
>>>>>     include/linux/dma-fence-types.h             | 258 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     include/linux/dma-fence.h                   | 228 +----------------
>>>> Mhm, I don't really see the value in creating more header files.
>>>>
>>>> Especially I'm pretty sure that the types should stay in dma-fence.h
>>> iirc, when I included the trace.h from dma-fence.h or dma-fence-impl.h
>>> without separating the types, amdgpu failed to compile (which is more
>>> than likely to be simply due to be first drm in the list to compile).
>> Ah, but why do you want to include trace.h in a header in the first place?
>>
>> That's usually not something I would recommend either.
> The problem is that we do emit a tracepoint as part of the sequence I
> want to put into the reusable chunk of code.

Ok, we are going in circles here. Why do you want to reuse the code then?

Christian.

> -Chris