Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > BTW, this got me thinking that we should probably treat > _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS the same way, i.e. clear the flag after updating > vblwait->request.sequence. Otherwise there could theoretically (though > unlikely) be an infinite loop: I was thinking that we should just re-compute the target sequence from scratch and not modify the request at all. But, now I see your point -- if the wait is interrupted long after it starts, then we don't want to change the target number. I wonder if anyone actually waits for vblank anymore, or if everyone just uses the event interface... > ioctl with _DRM_VBLANK_NEXTONMISS, target missed => wait for next vblank > wait interrupted by signal > lather, rinse, repeat Yeah, sounds like a latent bug. Ok, to retract my last email, I'll go ahead and fix things up so that the request sequence gets set to the correct absolute value and that any flags which modify it get cleared. > I'd advise against adding a "next on miss" flag for the new ioctl until > there is specific demand for that. Thanks for your advice :-) -- -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
