On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 04:35:55PM -0800, Iouri Tarassov wrote:

On 1/17/2022 1:35 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:34 AM Iouri Tarassov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

btw another idea I had over the w/e: Another option might be to allow
different backends for sync_file, and then making sure that you cannot
ever mix dma_fence and hv_dxg_fence type sync_file up (in e.g. the
merge ioctl).

The issue is that fundamentally dma_fence and memory fences (or umf
for userspace memory fences as we tend to call them) aren't
compatible, but some of the interop plans we have is to allow stuffing
either of them into fence container objects like sync_file. So going
that route for wddm monitored fence support too could be a really
future-proof approach, plus it'd allow you to still share the
sync_file interface code. Not that it's going to be much code sharing,
since all the implementation code needs to be distinct.
-Daniel

Thanks Daniel!

I will remove the patch for dxgsyncfile from the next set of upstream
patches.

It will be added later after a re-design.

Yeah sounds like a good plan forward to not hold up everything else
meanwhile.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch