Re: [PATCH 2/6] dma-resv: Define guards for context-less dma_resv locks

["Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>]

On 5/21/26 11:01, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:54:02 +0200
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 21 May 2026 10:36:47 +0200
>> Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/26 16:15, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
>>>> On Mon, 18 May 2026 14:18:41 +0200
>>>> Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>> On 5/18/26 11:14, Boris Brezillon wrote:    
>>>>>> Hi Christian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 May 2026 09:10:23 +0200
>>>>>> Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> 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 <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>        
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
> 
> BTW, I actually did more than just dma-buf.c [1], let me know what you
> want from there and I'll ditch the rest.
> 
> [1]https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/bbrezillon/linux/-/commits/b4/panthor-guard-refactor

Yeah looks good, just reorganize the patches by scope and send them out as patch set grouped by lock type.

Thanks,
Christian.