On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:55:30PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote: > 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. If there's no amdgpu deps I think best to merge through drm-misc (which now also contains dma-buf stuff, maintainers patch should go out as soon as the new drm-misc.git is live). -Daniel -- 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
