On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 01:39:15PM -0700, Tarun Vyas wrote:
> Just a minor knit. Stumbled across the kernel doc for schedule_timeout() which
> quotes "In all cases the return value is guaranteed to be non-negative". Also,
> the return code of schedule_timeout() already checks for negative values
> "return timeout < 0 ? 0 : timeout;" and returns 0 in such cases. So,
> let's do away with the redundant check for an atomic pipe update.
Makes sense to me.
Also in the very first iteration where it gets timeout from msecs_to_jiffies_timeout,
that should return an unsigned long value and then onwards schedule_timeout should
return a non negative value.
So I agree that we can get rid of the <=0 check.
Might be better to say clearly in the commit message "No functional change".
With that,
Reviewed-by: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
Manasi
>
> Signed-off-by: Tarun Vyas <tarun.vyas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> index aa1dfaa692b9..9cd4be020840 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_sprite.c
> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ void intel_pipe_update_start(const struct intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state)
> if (scanline < min || scanline > max)
> break;
>
> - if (timeout <= 0) {
> + if (!timeout) {
> DRM_ERROR("Potential atomic update failure on pipe %c\n",
> pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> break;
> --
> 2.13.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
