On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:29:35 +0100 Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:23:26 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > wrote: > > The only time irq_get should fail is during unload or suspend. Both > > of these points should try to quiesce the GPU before disabling > > interrupts and so the atomic polling should never occur. > > > > This was recommended by Chris Wilson as a way of reducing added > > complexity to the polled wait which I introduced in an RFC patch. > > > > 09:57 < ickle_> it's only there as a fudge for waiting after irqs > > after uninstalled during s&r, we aren't actually meant to hit it > > 09:57 < ickle_> so maybe we should just kill the code there and fix > > the breakage > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky at intel.com> > > --- > > > + if (WARN_ON(!ring->irq_get(ring))) > > + return -EBUSY; > > I think this is now a -ENODEV; :) > -Chris > Got it. Thanks.
