Messages in this thread | | | From | Emil Velikov <> | Date | Wed, 31 Oct 2018 09:38:31 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/virtio: add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence() |
| |
Hi Rob,
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 19:38, Robert Foss <robert.foss@collabora.com> wrote: > > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.com> > > Refactor fence creation to remove the potential allocation failure from > the cmd_submit and atomic_commit paths. Now the fence should be allocated > first and just after we should proceed with the rest of the execution. >
Commit does a bit more that what the above says: - dummy, factor out fence creation/destruction - use per virtio_gpu_framebuffer fence
Personally I'd keep the two separate patches and elaborate on the latter. Obviously in that case, one will need to add 3 lines worth of virtio_gpu_fence_alloc() in virtio_gpu_cursor_plane_update which will be nuked with the next patch.
Not a big deal, but it's up-to the maintainer to make the final call if it's worth splitting or not.
Couple of minor nitpicks below.
> struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev = dev->dev_private; > struct virtio_gpu_output *output = NULL; > struct virtio_gpu_framebuffer *vgfb; > - struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence = NULL; > struct virtio_gpu_object *bo = NULL; > uint32_t handle; > int ret = 0;
Add the virtio_gpu_fence_alloc()? And yes it will be nuked with patch 2/...
> +struct virtio_gpu_fence *virtio_gpu_fence_alloc(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev) > +{ > + struct virtio_gpu_fence_driver *drv = &vgdev->fence_drv; > + struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence = kzalloc(sizeof(struct virtio_gpu_fence), GFP_ATOMIC); > + if (!fence) > + return fence; > + > + fence->drv = drv; > + dma_fence_init(&fence->f, &virtio_fence_ops, &drv->lock, drv->context, 0); Oh no, lines over 80 col... while the original code is pretty and neat.
> + > + return fence; > +} > + > +void virtio_gpu_fence_cleanup(struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence) > +{ > + if (!fence) > + return; > + > + if (fence->drv) > + dma_fence_put(&fence->f); > + else > + kfree(fence); I'm not sure if/how we reach the else case here?
> +} > + > int virtio_gpu_fence_emit(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev, > struct virtio_gpu_ctrl_hdr *cmd_hdr, > - struct virtio_gpu_fence **fence) > + struct virtio_gpu_fence *fence) > {
With a follow-up commit, we can drop the no longer needed return type. Which it turns out was never checked ...
> @@ -319,6 +332,8 @@ static int virtio_gpu_resource_create_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > dma_fence_put(&fence->f); > } > return 0; > +fail_fence:
The error labels seems to be called after what they do, not what fails. fail_backoff seems better IMHO.
> +ttm_eu_backoff_reservation(&ticket, &validate_list); Indentation seems off (or my client ate it)?
HTH Emil
| |