On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:40:48AM +0800, Chia-I Wu wrote: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > > Note that userspace may use GL_TIMEOUT_IGNORED for timeout_ns to wait > indefinitely. The macro is defined to > > #define GL_TIMEOUT_IGNORED 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFull > > Prior to 3.17, the kernel would behave as expected. But on 3.17, it would > return immediately with -ETIME if the bo is busy. That sounds like a regression, for which we need a testcase in igt and a special-case in our wait ioctl to make sure that we have an infinite timeout for this input value. Can you please take care of both? I guess we could also restore the bevahiour for negative timeouts, just for the sake of it. Would again need a testcase though. Also note that I've recently refactored the wait ioctl testcase, so adding new subtests should be a lot easier now. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
