Specifically document the new/clarified rules around how the shared
fences do not have any ordering requirements against the exclusive
fence.
But also document all the things a bit better, given how central
struct dma_resv to dynamic buffer management the docs have been very
inadequat.
- Lots more links to other pieces of the puzzle. Unfortunately
ttm_buffer_object has no docs, so no links :-(
- Explain/complain a bit about dma_resv_locking_ctx(). I still don't
like that one, but fixing the ttm call chains is going to be
horrible. Plus we want to plug in real slowpath locking when we do
that anyway.
- Main part of the patch is some actual docs for struct dma_resv.
Overall I think we still have a lot of bad naming in this area (e.g.
dma_resv.fence is singular, but contains the multiple shared fences),
but I think that's more indicative of how the semantics and rules are
just not great.
Another thing that's real awkard is how chaining exclusive fences
right now means direct dma_resv.exclusive_fence pointer access with an
rcu_assign_pointer. Not so great either.
v2:
- Fix a pile of typos (Matt, Jason)
- Hammer it in that breaking the rules leads to use-after-free issues
around dma-buf sharing (Christian)
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: Jason Ekstrand <jason@jlekstrand.net>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210805104705.862416-21-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch
d9edf92d49