On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 16:20 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 12/1/25 14:55, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 14:23 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > On 12/1/25 11:50, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > > The overwhelming majority of users of dma_fence signaling functions
> > > > don't care about whether the fence had already been signaled by someone
> > > >
> >
[…]
> > >
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + bool ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags);
> > > > + ret = dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked(fence);
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags);
> > >
> > > Could this use guard(fence->lock, flags) ?
> >
> > guard? You mean a lockdep guard? Do you have a pointer to someplace in
> > dma_fence who does what you mean / want?
>
> E.g. like guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&fence->lock);
Hmm, but why?
It's obvious to all readers that I do spin_unlock_irqrestore() here.
It's very simple code, lock, 1 line, unlock. What would the guard
improve?
P.
