Quoting Bloomfield, Jon (2019-08-26 18:51:32) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c > > > > index 5d9101376a3d..e6c351080593 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_getparam.c > > > > @@ -78,8 +78,7 @@ int i915_getparam_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void > > > > *data, > > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > break; > > > > case I915_PARAM_HAS_GPU_RESET: > > > > - value = i915_modparams.enable_hangcheck && > > > > - intel_has_gpu_reset(i915); > > > > + value = intel_has_gpu_reset(i915); > > > > > > Don't understand this tweak. We haven't really changed the essence of > > hangcheck, just improved it, so why do we change this get_param? > > > > I deleted the modparam in earlier patches. But anticipated you would > > object... > > Ok, I see. But then shouldn't we just be checking the new param for a non-zero timeout? That would then be equivalent. > Or, it seems fair to conclude that this never made sense, but then it really ought to be a separate patch to remove the association between HAS_GPU_RESET and hangcheck. The chunk is gone. Questions for another day. :-p -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
