From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751599AbcFXNRa (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:17:30 -0400
Received: from mail-yw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.161.180]:33615 "EHLO
	mail-yw0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751315AbcFXNR3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:17:29 -0400
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:17:24 -0300
From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
To: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, marcheu@google.com,
        Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>, seanpaul@google.com,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>,
        John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>, m.chehab@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] rework fences on struct sync_file
Message-ID: <20160624131724.GA2503@joana>
Mail-Followup-To: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
	Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, marcheu@google.com,
	Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>, seanpaul@google.com,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>,
	John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>, m.chehab@samsung.com
References: <1466695790-2833-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org>
 <576CFD0B.6000501@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <576CFD0B.6000501@amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Christian,

2016-06-24 Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>:

> Am 23.06.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Gustavo Padovan:
> > From: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This is an attempt to improve fence support on Sync File. The basic idea
> > is to have only sync_file->fence and store all fences there, either as
> > normal fences or fence_arrays. That way we can remove some potential
> > duplication when using fence_array with sync_file: the duplication of the array
> > of fences and the duplication of fence_add_callback() for all fences.
> > 
> > Now when creating a new sync_file during the merge process sync_file_set_fence()
> > will set sync_file->fence based on the number of fences for that sync_file. If
> > there is more than one fence a fence_array is created. One important advantage
> > approach is that we only add one fence callback now, no matter how many fences
> > there are in a sync_file - the individual callbacks are added by fence_array.
> > 
> > Two fence ops had to be created to help abstract the difference between handling
> > fences and fences_arrays: .teardown() and .get_fences(). The former run needed
> > on fence_array, and the latter just return a copy of all fences in the fence.
> > I'm not so sure about adding those two, speacially .get_fences(). What do you
> > think?
> 
> Clearly not a good idea to add this a fence ops, cause those are specialized
> functions for only a certain fence implementation (the fence_array).

Are you refering only to .get_fences()?

> 
> What you should do is try to cast the fence in your sync file using
> to_fence_array() and then you can access the fences in the array.

Yes, that seems a better idea I think. The initial idea was to abstract         
the difference as much as possible, but it doesn't seem really worth            
for .get_fences().

	Gustavo