On 5/22/25 14:59, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:34:33PM +0200, Christian König wrote: >> See all the functions inside include/linux/dma-fence.h can be used by >> everybody. It's basically the public interface of the dma_fence object. > > As you write below, in certain cases it is valid to call this from drivers, so > it's not unreasonable to have it as part of the public API.
The question is from which drivers? >> So testing if a fence is signaled without calling the callback is only >> allowed by whoever implemented the fence. >> >> In other words nouveau can test nouveau fences, i915 can test i915 fences, >> amdgpu can test amdgpu fences etc... But if you have the wrapper that makes >> it officially allowed that nouveau starts testing i915 fences and that would >> be problematic. > > In general, I like the __dma_fence_is_signaled() helper, because this way we > can document in which cases it is allowed to be used, i.e. the ones you > descibe > above. > > test_bit() can be called by anyone and there is no documentation comment > explaining that it is only allowed under certain conditions. That's a rather good argument. > Having the __dma_fence_is_signaled() helper properly documented could get you > rid of having to explain in which case the test_bit() dance is allowed to do > over and over again. :-) That's an even better argument. > I also think the name is good, since the '__' prefix already implies that > there > are some restrictions on the use of this helper. I'm still hesitating. Adding something to the API always made it usable by everybody. Now suddenly saying we add that to the include/linux/dma-fence.h header but only certainly code can use it still sounds questionable to me. Regards, Christian.
