On 11/18/2022 11:42 AM, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
Users of intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout() expect 0 return value on
success. However, we have no protection from passing back 0 potentially
returned by a call to dma_fence_wait_timeout() when it succedes right
after its timeout has expired.
Replace 0 with -ETIME before potentially using the timeout value as return
code, so -ETIME is returned if there are still some requests not retired
after timeout, 0 otherwise.
v2: Move the added lines down so flush_submission() is not affected.
Fixes: f33a8a51602c ("drm/i915: Merge wait_for_timelines with retire_request")
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v5.5+
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c
index edb881d756309..3ac4603eeb4ee 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c
@@ -199,6 +199,9 @@ out_active: spin_lock(&timelines->lock);
if (remaining_timeout)
*remaining_timeout = timeout;
+ if (!timeout)
+ timeout = -ETIME;
This will return error, -ETIME when 0 timeout is passed,
intel_gt_retire_requests().
We don't want that. I think you can use a separate variable to store
return val from the dma_fence_wait_timeout()
Regards,
Nirmoy
+
return active_count ? timeout : 0;
}
