On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:23:31 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> + ret = i915_seqno_wait_timed(ring, seqno, true, &timeout);
> + if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS)
> + ret = -EINTR;
Don't convert it here, pass ERESTARTSYS to the system call handler which
decides how to handle it.
> + else if (ret == -ETIME) {
> + ret = -EBUSY;
Why the semantic change? ETIME for timer timed out still seems appropriate.
I think this whole interface is a stop-gap solution for pollable sync
objects without a clear use case. Do we have a spec for a feature
wishing to build upon this interface?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
