Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Subtle breakage here: vblwait->request.sequence must still get updated > for _DRM_VBLANK_RELATIVE, in case we're interrupted by a signal. Thanks for finding this. I think it might be better to just not modify the request.type field instead, so that on re-entry it gets recomputed? That would mean that a signal might cause the value to be different if the application takes a long time processing the signal, but I'm not sure that's wrong? >> @@ -317,6 +317,9 @@ int via_driver_irq_postinstall(struct drm_device *dev) >> if (!dev_priv) >> return -EINVAL; >> >> + if (dev->driver->get_vblank_counter) >> + dev->max_vblank_count = 0xffffffff; > > What's the purpose of this? All drivers providing get_vblank_counter > should already initialize max_vblank_count correctly. Yeah, I couldn't prove that this driver did that, and as Daniel says, we haven't ever audited the drivers to make sure they do. We have a check to see that they don't set max_vblank_count if they don't provide a get function, but I can't find the matching check for drivers that do provide a function and aren't setting max_vblank_count. Do you have any thoughts on the wisdom of changing this API before we have a driver that needs it? And, of course, thanks for your review! -- -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
