From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: drm/imagination: Fit paired fragment job in the correct CCCB
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 17:33:24 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <review-patch2-20260330-job-submission-fixes-cleanup-v1-2-7de8c09cef8c@imgtec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260330-job-submission-fixes-cleanup-v1-2-7de8c09cef8c@imgtec.com>
Patch Review
**Status**: Correct fix, Cc: stable appropriate.
The core problem: when `prepare_job()` was called recursively for the paired fragment job, it passed the geometry job's `queue` (entity), so `pvr_queue_get_job_cccb_fence()` checked space in the geometry CCCB instead of the fragment CCCB.
The fix moves the fragment job's `done_fence` init and CCCB space check into `pvr_queue_get_paired_frag_job_dep()`, which correctly derives the fragment queue from `frag_job->ctx->queues.fragment`:
```c
+ struct pvr_queue *frag_queue = frag_job ? frag_job->ctx->queues.fragment : NULL;
...
+ pvr_queue_job_fence_init(frag_job->done_fence, frag_queue);
+ return pvr_queue_get_job_cccb_fence(frag_queue, frag_job);
```
This eliminates the recursive `prepare_job()` call entirely. After this change, `pvr_queue_prepare_job()` can use `pvr_queue_job_fence_init(job->done_fence, queue)` unconditionally for non-paired-fragment jobs, which simplifies the code.
The early-return check for `job->paired_job->has_pm_ref` is preserved for the case where `prepare_job()` is called again after the paired fragment job has already been submitted.
**No issues.**
---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-31 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-30 7:56 [PATCH 0/8] drm/imagination: Job submission fixes and cleanup Alessio Belle
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 1/8] drm/imagination: Count paired job fence as dependency in prepare_job() Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 2/8] drm/imagination: Fit paired fragment job in the correct CCCB Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude Code Review Bot [this message]
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 3/8] drm/imagination: Skip check on paired job fence during job submission Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 4/8] drm/imagination: Rename pvr_queue_fence_is_ufo_backed() to reflect usage Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 5/8] drm/imagination: Rename fence returned by pvr_queue_job_arm() Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 6/8] drm/imagination: Move repeated job fence check to its own function Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 7/8] drm/imagination: Update check to skip prepare_job() for fragment jobs Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-30 7:56 ` [PATCH 8/8] drm/imagination: Minor improvements to job submission code documentation Alessio Belle
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-03-31 7:33 ` Claude review: drm/imagination: Job submission fixes and cleanup Claude Code Review Bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=review-patch2-20260330-job-submission-fixes-cleanup-v1-2-7de8c09cef8c@imgtec.com \
--to=claude-review@example.com \
--cc=dri-devel-reviews@example.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox