On Tue, 21 May 2013, Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com> wrote: > We need this to avoid premature timeouts whenever scheduling a timeout > based on the current jiffies value. For an explanation see [1]. > The following patches will take the helper into use. > > Once the more generic solution proposed in the thread at [1] is accepted > this patch can be reverted while keeping the follow-up patches. > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 With the name clashes, what happens when the generic solution is merged? Blows up the build? To avoid confusion with merging upstream and potential stable backports, should we err on the safe side and rename these? Or add suitable trickery to use the generic version when available? BR, Jani. > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > index 639ec0b..78b6c56 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > @@ -1981,4 +1981,19 @@ static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(u64 address) > return (void __user *)(uintptr_t)address; > } > > +static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m) > +{ > + unsigned long j = msecs_to_jiffies(m); > + > + return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1); > +} > + > +static inline unsigned long > +timespec_to_jiffies_timeout(const struct timespec *value) > +{ > + unsigned long j = timespec_to_jiffies(value); > + > + return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1); > +} > + > #endif > -- > 1.8.1.2 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
