On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Christian, > > 2016-10-20 Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> From: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> >> >> This reverts commit fb8b7d2b9d80e1e71f379e57355936bd2b024be9. >> >> Otherwise signaling might never be activated on the fences. This can >> result in infinite waiting with hardware which has unreliable interrupts. >> >> v2: still return one when the timeout is zero and we don't have any fences. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@xxxxxxx> (v1) >> --- >> drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I've rebased these patches based on the fence renaming in drm-next. Should I pull these in through my tree or should they go in through drm-misc or the dma-buf tree? If the later, I'll send out the rebased patches. Alex _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
