On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:56:57PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
>
> in the subject /dma_fenc_signal/dma_fence_signal/
>
> > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > {
> > struct xe_hw_fence *fence, *next;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > - int err;
> > bool tmp;
> >
> > if (XE_WARN_ON(!list_empty(&irq->pending))) {
> > @@ -93,9 +92,9 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next, &irq->pending, irq_link) {
> > list_del_init(&fence->irq_link);
> > - err = dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
>
> why don't we do
>
> XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_signal_locked(..))
>
IIRC the above statement can compile out. So the patch looks correct to me.
Matt
> instead?
>
> Andi
>
> > + XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(&fence->dma));
> > + dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
> > dma_fence_put(&fence->dma);
> > - XE_WARN_ON(err);
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
> > dma_fence_end_signalling(tmp);
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
