On Thu, 2025-11-27 at 09:11 +0100, Christian König wrote: > On 11/26/25 17:55, Matthew Brost wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 08:41:27AM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 02:19:10PM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > > > The dma_fence framework checks at many places whether the signaled flag > > > > of a fence is already set. The code can be simplified and made more > > > > readable by providing a helper function for that. > > > > > > > > Add dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(), which only checks whether a fence is > > > > signaled. Use it internally. > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <[email protected]> > > > > > > This is a nice cleanp: > > > Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <[email protected]> > > > > > > > --- > > > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 19 +++++++++---------- > > > > include/linux/dma-fence.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > > > index 39e6f93dc310..25117a906846 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > > > @@ -372,8 +372,7 @@ int dma_fence_signal_timestamp_locked(struct > > > > dma_fence *fence, > > > > > > > > lockdep_assert_held(fence->lock); > > > > > > > > - if (unlikely(test_and_set_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, > > > > - &fence->flags))) > > > > I need to read a little better, I think this change isn't quite right. > > The original code is test and set, the updated code is test only (i.e., > > you are missing the set step). So maybe just leave this line as is. > > Oh, good point! I've totally missed that as well.
Oh dear; I also just saw it when opening the mail client ._. > > But that means that this patch set hasn't even been smoke tested. I've built it and did some basic testing with my Nouveau system. Any suggestions? Do you have a CI that one can trigger? Thx P.
