On 9/2/26 13:39, Philipp Stanner wrote: > On Wed, 2026-09-02 at 11:20 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >> >> To collate two replies in one: >> >> On 02/09/2026 11:07, Philipp Stanner wrote: >> >>> >>> The issue here IMO is that we are discussing working around an issue >>> that actually stems from dma_fence not being consistently synchronized, >>> notably because of the ops->release callback being implemented. >>> >>> ops->release is de facto deprecated, precisely for reasons like these. >>> >>> If we could get rid of it for sched_fence, dma_fence would take care of >>> the decoupling of the name callbacks. >>> >>> So that appears worth investigating from my POV. >> >> I completely agree here but I am just not sure how feasible that would >> be. We may accept to live with the cross-documentation workaround at >> least as a start since even if feasible it could be a lot of work to >> change sched_fence like that. > > > It should be enough to remove ops->release for the finished_fence for > now, since that's the one typically (always?) shared with userspace. > > All that release cb does is drop yet another reference.
IIRC at some point that change was part of what my patch set to the drm_sched_fence did when I came up with the inline fence. This was far from completed / thought through but might be useful digging that up again for a start. Christian. > I think it's worth an investigation. Maybe 김종혁 can give it a look? > > > P.
