From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Ensure that the wait ioctl return
 timeout is valid
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:19:52 -0800
Message-ID: <20121129081952.0000487c@unknown>
References: <1352920285-26149-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<20121129124217.GK3202@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from shiva.chad-versace.us (209-20-75-48.static.cloud-ips.com
	[209.20.75.48])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D178FE63E5
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:20:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121129124217.GK3202@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:42:17 +0100
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 07:11:24PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Due to a discrepancy between the sleep time and the amount of time
> > we spend waiting inside the wait_event_timeout, it is possible that
> > we end up computing that negative time remains in the wait_ioctl.
> > This is obviously a bogus result to return to userspace, and
> > triggers a WARN, so we need to fix up the value before propagating
> > it back.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> 
> Ben, can you pls take a look at this and smash an r-b on it if you're
> ok?
> 
> Thanks, Daniel

I want the real bug fixed! I do suspect it's a test bug, but I'd
prefer not to slap an r-b on until I can pass the original
problematic test. This just fixes an annoying WARN, which isn't super
important to me because it's not a regression (since it existed since
day 1), and no userspace really cares yet other than IGT.

I did review the patch previously, and it looks fine. So, the r-b is
pending.