Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <deb33dd6-06c8-13c1-8d37-4c4f36248d96@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:35:55 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 9/9] drivers: hv: dxgkrnl: Implement DXGSYNCFILE
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc:     kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com, sthemmin@microsoft.com,
        wei.liu@kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, spronovo@microsoft.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        jenatali@microsoft.com
References: <cover.1641937419.git.iourit@linux.microsoft.com>
 <e04c8e820bc166d9d4fe8e388aace731bb3255b0.1641937420.git.iourit@linux.microsoft.com>
 <YeG6+Crv/Bg4h3u1@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <e472cbe8-44ec-110a-1ad7-bc561cd0be88@linux.microsoft.com>
 <CAKMK7uFkVvfXM7QsgSfP4OLk9b_cSwNsi3s3_7EFuL+Pa1s7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Iouri Tarassov <iourit@linux.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uFkVvfXM7QsgSfP4OLk9b_cSwNsi3s3_7EFuL+Pa1s7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 1/17/2022 1:35 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:34 AM Iouri Tarassov
> <iourit@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> btw another idea I had over the w/e: Another option might be to allow
> different backends for sync_file, and then making sure that you cannot
> ever mix dma_fence and hv_dxg_fence type sync_file up (in e.g. the
> merge ioctl).
>
> The issue is that fundamentally dma_fence and memory fences (or umf
> for userspace memory fences as we tend to call them) aren't
> compatible, but some of the interop plans we have is to allow stuffing
> either of them into fence container objects like sync_file. So going
> that route for wddm monitored fence support too could be a really
> future-proof approach, plus it'd allow you to still share the
> sync_file interface code. Not that it's going to be much code sharing,
> since all the implementation code needs to be distinct.
> -Daniel

Thanks Daniel!

I will remove the patch for dxgsyncfile from the next set of upstream 
patches.

It will be added later after a re-design.

Iouri