MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161111171123.pq7vd2h33xwqestp@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1478873759-6580-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org>
 <1478873759-6580-4-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <CAOw6vb+FLqDgBOYoB714-7jnkFWO9H+HvyqZ5JMJO6mNjrfyDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161111171123.pq7vd2h33xwqestp@phenom.ffwll.local>
From: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:21:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOw6vb+E9zeQTckxnSuuExxgddkMX-FXubZ6omsTAc4JE3ggOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] drm/fence: add out-fences support
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@intel.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane_Marchesin?= <marcheu@google.com>,
        m.chehab@samsung.com,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@arm.com>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1399
Lines: 35

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:48:09AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org> wrote:
>> > +static void complete_crtc_signaling(struct drm_device *dev,
>> > +                                    struct drm_atomic_state *state,
>> > +                                    struct drm_out_fence_state *fence_state,
>> > +                                    unsigned int num_fences, int ret)
>> > +{
>> > +       struct drm_crtc *crtc;
>> > +       struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state;
>> > +       int i;
>> > +
>> > +       if (!ret) {
>>
>> I don't think there's any reason to smash the fd install and clean-up
>> into one function. I think splitting into 2 functions and calling the
>> right one from atomic_ioctl would be better.
>
> Hm, I suggested this because the control flow in one of Gustavo's earlier
> patches look really funny. I guess it could be split up again, but with
> both callers in the current position. tbh I don't care whether it's this
> or that, both are clear improvement over the older version.

I really don't have a strong opinion either. Perhaps meet in the
middle and pass bool install_fds instead of ret (since that's kind of
an anti-pattern)?

Sean


> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch