On Fre, 2012-04-20 at 00:39 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> index 1a9765a..764ab7e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_next(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> }
> if (list_empty(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].emitted)) {
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&rdev->fence_lock, irq_flags);
> - return 0;
> + return -ENOENT;
> }
> fence = list_entry(rdev->fence_drv[ring].emitted.next,
> struct radeon_fence, list);
> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_last(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> }
> if (list_empty(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].emitted)) {
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&rdev->fence_lock, irq_flags);
> - return 0;
> + return -ENOENT;
> }
> fence = list_entry(rdev->fence_drv[ring].emitted.prev,
> struct radeon_fence, list);
It seems weird to declare a fence wait as failed when there are no
outstanding fences in the first place. If there are callers which
require outstanding fences, they should probably handle that themselves.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
