On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:21:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Both busy_ioctl and the new wait_ioct need to do the same dance (or at > least should). Some slight changes: > - busy_ioctl now unconditionally checks for olr. Before emitting a > require flush would have prevent the olr check and hence required a > second call to the busy ioctl to really emit the request. > - the timeout wait now also retires request. Not really required for > abi-reasons, but makes a notch more sense imo. > > I've tested this by pimping the i-g-t test some more and also checking > the polling behviour of the wait_rendering_timeout ioctl versus what > busy_ioctl returns. > > v2: Too many people complained about unplug, new color is > flush_active. > > v3: Kill the comment about the unplug moniker. > > v4: s/un-active/inactive/ > > Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> Picked up for dinq with Ben's irc r-b added. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: daniel at ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48
