On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:58:15AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> As we only update and sanitize the return timeout value after a
> successful wait, we should not assert that it is valid for any error
> returns. Also, for consistency, we should only modify args->timeout_ns
> upon success.
Doesn't that break our -EAGAIN trickery?
-Daniel
>
> Cc: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 63c05dd..da78cf7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2377,7 +2377,7 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
> mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>
> ret = __wait_seqno(ring, seqno, reset_counter, true, timeout);
> - if (timeout) {
> + if (ret == 0 && timeout) {
> WARN_ON(!timespec_valid(timeout));
> args->timeout_ns = timespec_to_ns(timeout);
> }
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
