Hi Matt,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 03:56:32PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 11:56:57PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > > @@ -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.
you have defined XE_WARN_ON as WARN_ON that should always
evaluate the content and, depending on the configuration, it
prints the logs or not.
What I don't like from this patch is that we end up checking
twice for the DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT bit.
Thanks,
Andi
