On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:36:47 +0200 Christian König <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/18/26 16:15, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 18 May 2026 14:18:41 +0200 > > Christian König <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 5/18/26 11:14, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> Hi Christian, > >>> > >>> On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:10:23 +0200 > >>> Christian König <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 5/13/26 18:58, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>>>> When used without a context, dma_resv are no different from regular > >>>>> locks. Define guards so we can use the guard-syntactic sugars for > >>>>> explicit/implicit scoped locks. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> How do you want to upstream it? My preference would be drm-misc-next, > >>>> but I think I can live with a panthor specific branch as well. > >>> > >>> Everything Panthor related goes through drm-misc-next, so drm-misc-next > >>> also has my preference ;-). But I'd like to wait for more feedback on > >>> the other drm patches, and there are a few things I need to address in > >>> the panthor patches anyway, so it's likely to take a couple more weeks > >>> for this series to hit the drm-misc tree, unless you have a good reason > >>> to fast-track this specific patch. > >> > >> Well the DMA-buf code itself uses dma_resv_lock/unlock > > > > There's no use in dma-resv.c that can be converted to guards. I gave > > dma-buf.c a try, but just like for panthor, I don't really like the fact > > it's halfway through (other locks still use manual locking), so I'd be > > tempted to convert everything at once for consistency. If you're fine > > with that, I can give this a try. > > Well depends on what everything means. I would only convert dma-buf.c in one > patch and nothing else. By everything I mean all type of locks, not just dma_resv ones.
