On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 11:12, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We're lifting, or well, clarifying that the restriction that shared
> fences have to be strictly after the exclusive one doesn't apply
> anymore.
>
> So adjust the code to always also wait for the exclusive fence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> index 91711a46b1c7..271d321cea83 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> @@ -601,10 +601,10 @@ int i915_sw_fence_await_reservation(struct
> i915_sw_fence *fence,
> for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
> kfree(shared);
> - } else {
> - excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
> }
>
> + excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
> +
The dma_resv_get_fences() call looks like it already fishes out the
exclusive fence. Does this not leak the extra ref now?
> if (ret >= 0 && excl) {
> pending = i915_sw_fence_await_dma_fence(fence,
> excl,
> --
> 2.32.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
