On Wed, 2025-11-26 at 15:02 +0100, Christian König wrote: > On 11/26/25 14:19, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > Barely anyone uses dma_fence_signal()'s (and similar functions') return > > code. Checking it is pretty much useless anyways, because what are you > > going to do if a fence was already signal it? Unsignal it and signal it > > again? ;p > > Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]> for the entire series. > > Please push to drm-misc-next or leave me a note when I should pick it up.
Thx! I can push it. Let's wait a while to see if some of the other folks have sth to say. > > > Removing the return code simplifies the API and makes it easier for me > > to sit on top with Rust DmaFence. > > BTW, I have an rb for embedding the lock and I'm now writing test cases. > > When that is done you should be able to base the Rust DmaFence abstraction on > that as well. Yeah, thank you, that will actually help since I was in the process of solving the same life time issues in Rust. I will give your series a review ~tomorrow, too. Or should I wait for v4 with the tests? P. > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > Philipp Stanner (6): > > dma-buf/dma-fence: Add dma_fence_test_signaled_flag() > > amd/amdkfd: Ignore return code of dma_fence_signal() > > drm/gpu/xe: Ignore dma_fenc_signal() return code > > dma-buf: Don't misuse dma_fence_signal() > > drm/ttm: Remove return check of dma_fence_signal() > > dma-buf/dma-fence: Remove return code of signaling-functions > > > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 59 ++++++------------- > > drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence.c | 7 +-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c | 5 +- > > .../gpu/drm/ttm/tests/ttm_bo_validate_test.c | 3 +- > > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c | 5 +- > > include/linux/dma-fence.h | 33 ++++++++--- > > 6 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) > > >
