On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:28AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Since fence_wait_timeout_reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() with a > timeout of 0 becomes reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(), we do not > need to handle such conversion in the caller. The only challenge are > those callers that wish to differentiate the error code between the > nonblocking busy check and potentially blocking wait. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_resource.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_resource.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_resource.c > index 6a328d507a28..1a85fb2d4dc6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_resource.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_resource.c > @@ -574,10 +574,8 @@ static int vmw_user_dmabuf_synccpu_grab(struct vmw_user_dma_buffer *user_bo, > bool nonblock = !!(flags & drm_vmw_synccpu_dontblock); > long lret; > > - if (nonblock) > - return reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(bo->resv, true) ? 0 : -EBUSY; > - > - lret = reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu(bo->resv, true, true, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT); > + lret = reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu(bo->resv, true, true, > + nonblock ? 0 : MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT); > if (!lret) > return -EBUSY; > else if (lret < 0) > -- > 2.9.3 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
