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. I think it's worth an investigation. Maybe 김종혁 can give it a look? P.
