On 11/7/25 13:04, Philipp Stanner wrote: > On Fri, 2025-10-31 at 14:16 +0100, Christian König wrote: >> Just as proof of concept and minor cleanup. > > I maintain that even relatively simple commits should give a new reader > ore one who's browsing through the log in 3 years a rough idea what's > going on. > > That is: quickly describe what the situation (motivation) is and what > the commit does. > > At the very least "proof of concept" is nothing anyone would expect in > a non-RFC patch. To me as a non-expert in dma-buf it's not clear at all > whether this patch here is actually necessary, i.e., solves a problem.
Proof of concept in the sense "I use this patch to test the concept with with the kernel unit tests and robots". > I also don't see how replacing one lock position with another is a > "cleanup". Sharing spinlocks is perfectly legal and will remain so, no? Well that's the more interesting question. On the one hand I'm now pretty sure that allowing those shared fences was a really bad idea, there is simply no valid use case for them. On the other hand changing all the existing implementations would be tons of work with limited gain. I already tried that before and without some intermediate solution like this here it would be an enormous patch set touching all current implementations at the same time. Regards, Christian. > > P. > >
