Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/virtio: add virtio_gpu_alloc_fence() | From | Robert Foss <> | Date | Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:43:51 +0100 |
| |
Hey Emil,
On 2018-10-31 10:38, Emil Velikov wrote: > 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.
Agreed, I'll hold off with this change until then.
> > 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.
Ack
> >> + >> + 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?
That case should never be hit, and if it is that's a bug. Fixed in v4.
> >> +} >> + >> 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 ... >
Fixed during drm-misc-next rebase for v4.
> > >> @@ -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.
Agreed. Fixed in v4.
> >> +ttm_eu_backoff_reservation(&ticket, &validate_list); > Indentation seems off (or my client ate it)?
No, the indentation is bad here. Fixed in v4.
Thanks for the feedback Emil.
| |