On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:39:27AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Since this is all old ums stuff (including the one in the radeon > > driver) I've just tried to perfectly replicate the existing semantics. > > > > Reinventing wait queue code with semantics that differ from all the > > standard linux wait functions is just hairy, so now we can get rid of > > this and so make sure it'll never again be used. > > > > Oh and: via futexes ... *shudder* > > This one worries me, I've had numerous attempts to rip this out in the > past and they always changed semantics on some devices and broke > stuff. > > The sneaky timeout is essential for a lot of the hardware > > http://marc.info/?l=dri-devel&m=111383274225047&w=1 > > So I think I'd like a few more people to review this one before I go > near it again :-) Oh, and I've thought the only tricky stuff is mapping the errno's correctly. I think if we have such cases of racy drivers then the right thing to do is to shovel this macro into drivers and slap a big comment about signalling races on top of that code. Thomas report doesn't say so, but I guess it's for via. Thomas, do you still have a vague recollection of what this has been about? Dave, do you want me to just respin this one with via left as-is (and the macro pushed into the via driver)? Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
