Am Mittwoch, den 05.10.2016, 21:45 +0530 schrieb Sumit Semwal: > Hi Lucas, > > On 23 September 2016 at 18:25, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:25AM +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: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Russell King <linux+etnaviv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > > Could you please let me know if this is in your tree already, or would > you like me to take it via drm-misc (in which case, an Acked-by would > be fabulous!) > I haven't picked it up yet. If you are going to take the series through drm-misc feel free to add: Acked-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Lucas _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
