On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 29/11/15 08:48, Chris Wilson wrote: > >We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout > >argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure > >that the timeout was still positive on the later requests. This is more > >simply done inside __i915_wait_request. > > As discussed on IRC please mention that the extra jiffie happens > because nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout adds it. Otherwise it is not > immediately clear why would it wait an extra one since > __i915_wait_request has explicit code to ensure timeout does not go > negative already. Sorry, I was under the impression that everyone knew the history of our *to_jiffies_timeout function variants. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
