On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hmm. Thinking about it more, using _wait_for() at all here is pointless. > > You just want to do something like, > > if (fast_timeout_us > 10) > fast_timeout_us = 10; > > So > > - ret = _wait_for(done, fast_timeout_us, 10); > - else > - ret = _wait_for_atomic(done, fast_timeout_us, 0); > + if (fast_timeout_us > 50000) > + fast_timeout_us = 50000; > + ret = _wait_for_atomic(done, fast_timeout_us, 0); After chatting on irc, looking at changing the behaviour here for future users (those who may want fast timeout > 10, e.g. 100/200) should be postponed until after they have been converted. Pushed, thanks for the patches. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
