Am 21.10.21 um 13:13 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
On 21/10/2021 12:06, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 21-10-2021 om 12:38 schreef Christian König:
Am 21.10.21 um 12:35 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Simplifying the code a bit.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
[mlankhorst: Handle timeout = 0 correctly, use new
i915_request_wait_timeout.]
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
LGTM, do you want to push it or should I pick it up into drm-misc-next?
I think it can be applied to drm-intel-gt-next, after a backmerge. It
needs patch 1 too, which fixes
i915_request_wait semantics when used in dma-fence. It exports a
dma-fence compatible i915_request_wait_timeout function, used in this
patch.
What about the other i915 patches? I guess you then want to merge them
through drm-intel-gt-next as well.
I don't think my open has been resolved, at least I haven't seen a
reply from Daniel on the topic of potential for infinite waits with
untrusted clients after this change. +Daniel
Please resolve that internally and let me know the result. I'm fine to
use any of the possible approaches, I just need to know which one.
Regards,
Christian.
Regards,
Tvrtko
