On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 01:32:37PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On to, 2017-02-02 at 15:13 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > It had only one callsite and existed to keep the code clearer. Now
> > having shared the wait-on-error between phases and with plans to change
> > the wait-for-execute in the next few patches, remove the out of line
> > wait loop and move it into the main body of i915_wait_request.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > @@ -1080,7 +1037,30 @@ long i915_wait_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req,
> > add_wait_queue(errq, &reset);
> >
> > if (!i915_sw_fence_done(&req->execute)) {
> > - timeout = __i915_request_wait_for_execute(req, flags, timeout);
> > + DEFINE_WAIT(exec);
> > +
> > + do {
> > + prepare_to_wait(&req->execute.wait, &exec, state);
> > + if (i915_sw_fence_done(&req->execute))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + if (flags & I915_WAIT_LOCKED &&
> > + i915_reset_in_progress(&req->i915->gpu_error)) {
> > + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> > + i915_reset(req->i915);
>
> I'm no the expert here, but this reads funnily; "if reset in progress,
> do reset".
In a series-to-come, this is renamed to
if (i915_reset_handoff())
i915_reset();
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
