Am 15.10.21 um 13:57 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
Commit ada5c48b11a3 ("dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_wait_timeout")
accidentally started mishandling timeout = 0, by forcing a blocking wait
with timeout = 1 passed to fences. This is not intended, as timeout = 0
may be used for peeking, similar to test_signaled.
Fixes: ada5c48b11a3 ("dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_wait_timeout")
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sorry for the delay, back from sick leave just today.
Good catch, but when I read the old code correctly that was also broken
before by passing in 1 to dma_fence_wait_timeout() for a timeout of 0.
---
drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
index 9eb2baa387d4..70a8082660c5 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
@@ -617,18 +617,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_resv_get_fences);
long dma_resv_wait_timeout(struct dma_resv *obj, bool wait_all, bool intr,
unsigned long timeout)
{
- long ret = timeout ? timeout : 1;
+ long ret = timeout ?: 1;
Please don't change the coding style here.
Apart from that looks good to me.
Christian.
struct dma_resv_iter cursor;
struct dma_fence *fence;
dma_resv_iter_begin(&cursor, obj, wait_all);
dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
+ ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, intr, timeout);
+ if (ret <= 0)
+ break;
- ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, intr, ret);
- if (ret <= 0) {
- dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor);
- return ret;
- }
+ if (timeout)
+ timeout = ret;
}
dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor);
