When timeout_ns is negative, it really means to wait indefinitely instead of
returning immediately. But since userspace can no longer rely on that, I am
not sure if there is any point fixing it.
Signed-off-by: Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index ad55b06..3da2d62 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -2787,9 +2787,9 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
goto out;
/* Do this after OLR check to make sure we make forward progress polling
- * on this IOCTL with a timeout <=0 (like busy ioctl)
+ * on this IOCTL with a timeout == 0 (like busy ioctl)
*/
- if (args->timeout_ns <= 0) {
+ if (args->timeout_ns == 0) {
ret = -ETIME;
goto out;
}
@@ -2798,7 +2798,8 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
reset_counter = atomic_read(&dev_priv->gpu_error.reset_counter);
mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
- return __wait_seqno(ring, seqno, reset_counter, true, &args->timeout_ns,
+ return __wait_seqno(ring, seqno, reset_counter, true,
+ (args->timeout_ns > 0) ? &args->timeout_ns : NULL,
file->driver_priv);
out:
--
2.1.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
