On 18/07/2019 14:13, Chunming Zhou wrote:
if WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT isn't set and in the meanwhile no underlying fence on syncobj,
then return non-block error code to user sapce.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
index 361a01a08c18..929f7c64f9a2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ int drm_syncobj_find_fence(struct drm_file *file_private,
return 0;
dma_fence_put(*fence);
} else {
- ret = -EINVAL;
+ ret = -ENOTBLK;
This will only return the new error when there is no chain fence in the
syncobj?
Don't you want the new error code after dma_fence_chain_find_seqno() too?
Which make me realize there is probably a bug with this code :
ret = dma_fence_chain_find_seqno(fence, point);
if (!ret)
return 0;
dma_fence_put(*fence);
Sounds like the condition should be
if (ret)
return ret;
I realize we have introduced a blocking behavior on the transfer ioctl.
If we're going to change this to return EWOULDBLOCK, we might want to
get rid of it.
-Lionel
}
if (!(flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT))
@@ -832,7 +832,7 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs,
if (flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT) {
continue;
} else {
- timeout = -EINVAL;
+ timeout = -ENOTBLK;
goto cleanup_entries;
}
}
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
