On Mon, 18 May 2026 14:18:41 +0200 Christian König <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/18/26 11:14, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > Hi Christian, > > > > On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:10:23 +0200 > > Christian König <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 5/13/26 18:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> When used without a context, dma_resv are no different from regular > >>> locks. Define guards so we can use the guard-syntactic sugars for > >>> explicit/implicit scoped locks. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]> > >> > >> How do you want to upstream it? My preference would be drm-misc-next, but > >> I think I can live with a panthor specific branch as well. > > > > Everything Panthor related goes through drm-misc-next, so drm-misc-next > > also has my preference ;-). But I'd like to wait for more feedback on > > the other drm patches, and there are a few things I need to address in > > the panthor patches anyway, so it's likely to take a couple more weeks > > for this series to hit the drm-misc tree, unless you have a good reason > > to fast-track this specific patch. > > Well the DMA-buf code itself uses dma_resv_lock/unlock There's no use in dma-resv.c that can be converted to guards. I gave dma-buf.c a try, but just like for panthor, I don't really like the fact it's halfway through (other locks still use manual locking), so I'd be tempted to convert everything at once for consistency. If you're fine with that, I can give this a try. > and obviously has test cases for all the different variants. Looks like the test cases all validate that dma_resv_lock(x, NULL) returns 0. If I were to convert those to guard(dma_resv)(), these checks would be gone. Is that okay with you?
