Am 18.06.21 um 19:20 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:43 PM Christian König
wrote:
Am 18.06.21 um 17:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
Ignoring _all_ fences is officially ok for pinned dma-buf. This is
what v4l does. Aside from it's definitely not just i915 that does this
even o
Am 16.06.21 um 20:30 schrieb Jason Ekstrand:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 3:41 AM Christian König
wrote:
Hi Jason & Daniel,
maybe I should explain once more where the problem with this approach is
and why I think we need to get that fixed before we can do something
like this here.
To summarize wha
Hi Daniel,
thanks for jumping in here.
And yes, you are absolutely right we need to get this fixed and not yell
at each other that we have a different understanding of things.
Your proposal sounds sane to me, but I wouldn't call it slots. Rather
something like "use cases" since we can have m
Am 18.06.21 um 17:17 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
Ignoring _all_ fences is officially ok for pinned dma-buf. This is
what v4l does. Aside from it's definitely not just i915 that does this
even on the drm side, we have a few more drivers nowadays.
No it seriously isn't. If drivers are doing thi
Am 17.06.21 um 21:58 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 09:37:36AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
[SNIP]
But, to the broader point, maybe? I'm a little fuzzy on exactly where
i915 inserts and/or depends on fences.
When you combine that with complex drivers which use TTM and buffer
Am 18.06.21 um 16:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
And that drivers choose to ignore the exclusive fence is an absolutely
no-go from a memory management and security point of view. Exclusive
access means exclusive access. Ignoring that won't work.
Yeah, this is why I've been going all over the
