On 30/11/15 10:19, Chris Wilson wrote:
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.
I don't know if I am the only one who didn't, but when I ask or suggest
for more or specific comments, or commit message additions during
review, it is always genuinely for things which I think would have
helped me with the review. Which means I also think they would help
anyone else getting up to speed with the code base.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
