Hi Thomas, Sinclair, On 23 September 2016 at 18:26, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:28AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> Since fence_wait_timeout_reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() with a >> timeout of 0 becomes reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(), we do not >> need to handle such conversion in the caller. The only challenge are >> those callers that wish to differentiate the error code between the >> nonblocking busy check and potentially blocking wait. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Sinclair Yeh <syeh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > Could you please let me know if this patch is already queued up at your end, or should I just take it via drm-misc with Sinclair's r-b? Thanks and Best, Sumit. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
