On 01.12.2012 16:58, Thierry Reding wrote: > I don't know where you see politics in what I said. All I'm saying is > that we shouldn't be making things needlessly complex. In my experience > the technically cleanest solution is usually the one with the least > complexity. Let me come up with a proposal and let's then see where to go next. > But you already have extra code in the kernel to patch out expired sync- > points. Is it really worth the added effort to burden userspace with > this? If so I still think some kind of generic IOCTL to retrieve > information about a syncpoint would be better than a sysfs interface. That's exactly why I mentioned that it's not useful to upstream. There are some cases where user space might want to check if a fence has passed without waiting for it, but that's marginal and could be handled even with waits with zero timeout. Terje _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
