On 12/1/25 16:53, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 16:20 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> On 12/1/25 14:55, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 14:23 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>>> On 12/1/25 11:50, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>>>>> The overwhelming majority of users of dma_fence signaling functions
>>>>> don't care about whether the fence had already been signaled by someone
>>>>>
>>>
>
> […]
>
>>>>
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>>> + bool ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags);
>>>>> + ret = dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked(fence);
>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags);
>>>>
>>>> Could this use guard(fence->lock, flags) ?
>>>
>>> guard? You mean a lockdep guard? Do you have a pointer to someplace in
>>> dma_fence who does what you mean / want?
>>
>> E.g. like guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&fence->lock);
>
>
> Hmm, but why?
> It's obvious to all readers that I do spin_unlock_irqrestore() here.
> It's very simple code, lock, 1 line, unlock. What would the guard
> improve?
Well you can save using the local variables.
So this:
unsigned long flags;
bool ret;
spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags);
ret = dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked(fence);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags);
return ret;
Becomes just:
guard(spinlock_irqsave)(&fence->lock);
return dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked(fence);
Regards,
Christian.
>
>
> P.
