Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-09-25 11:47:35)
>
> On 25/09/2019 11:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > -bool i915_retire_requests(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > +long i915_retire_requests_timeout(struct drm_i915_private *i915, long timeout)
> > {
> > struct intel_gt_timelines *timelines = &i915->gt.timelines;
> > struct intel_timeline *tl, *tn;
> > + unsigned long active_count = 0;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > + bool interruptible;
> > LIST_HEAD(free);
> >
> > + interruptible = true;
> > + if (timeout < 0)
> > + timeout = -timeout, interruptible = false;
>
> Slightly uneasy about the negative trick but alternatives which came to
> mind of or-ing the negative bit or wrapper for passing in the
> (non-)interruptible(timeout) do not sound so hot either.
Queasy feeling concurred. Our mission is not to have any
non-interruptible sleeps, but if we do we'll have to add unsigned flags
back. :|
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
