On Fri, 2026-09-25 at 19:32 +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote: > On Fri Sep 25, 2026 at 7:21 PM CEST, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > I guess we agree that it would be a horrible bug if there's still a > > command buffer running on the GPU that can access memory which might > > have been freed once the associated fence signaled. > > Sure, but that's unrelated. > > > So I suppose what you are saying is more: there is not much value in > > the case of *JobQueue*, basically because all the jobs live inside of > > it anyways. > > No, I'm saying there is not much value in general. Whatever thing owns the > DriverFence has to represent the "device access" of some resource, which > already naturally establishes the relationship. > > IOW, whatever thing owns a DriverFence is also the thing that stops the > hardware > in its own drop() implementation; anything else would be rather questionable. > > > So I suppose we agree that a warning is fine. It won't fire in JQ > > anyways, but might benefit others. > > What scenario are you thinking of?
Drivers doing "rather questionable" things, like we've seen a great many times already ;) Note that the dma_fence backend fires a WARN_ON if a fence is freed unsignaled, too, for the same reason. Life finds a way. P.
