Am 29.11.18 um 11:32 schrieb Chris Wilson:
Quoting Christian König (2018-11-28 14:50:12)
+/**
+ * dma_fence_chain_for_each - iterate over all fences in chain
+ * @fence: starting point as well as current fence
+ *
+ * Iterate over all fences in the chain. We keep a reference to the current
+ * fence while inside the loop which must be dropped when breaking out.
+ */
+#define dma_fence_chain_for_each(fence) \
+ for (dma_fence_get(fence);fence;fence=dma_fence_chain_walk(fence))
That's a nasty macro. Can we have separate vars for iter and head?
Good idea, I was also running into some issues where making this
distinct could have made it more easier to understand.
Going to change that,
Christian.
Reading,
+static bool dma_fence_chain_signaled(struct dma_fence *fence)
+{
+ dma_fence_chain_for_each(fence) {
+ struct dma_fence_chain *chain = to_dma_fence_chain(fence);
+ struct dma_fence *f = chain ? chain->fence : fence;
+
+ if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(f)) {
+ dma_fence_put(fence);
+ return false;
+ }
+ }
+
+ return true;
+}
it's not clear whether the intent there is to use the in parameter fence
or an iter.
for (it = dma_fence_get(fence); it; it = dma_fence_chain_walk(it))
dma_fence_chain_for_each(it, fence) {
struct dma_fence_chain *chain = to_dma_fence_chain(it);
struct dma_fence *f = chain ? chain->fence : it;
if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(f)) {
dma_fence_put(it);
return false;
}
}
-Chris
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
