Re: Fw: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: add a timed wait function

From: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] intel: add a timed wait function
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:35:35 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8762bds3ew.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uEPBjKkTC+4NqS7yFHxE1ju7902v+Lk_TEojy196CvJnw@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 943 bytes --]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:07:57 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> wrote:
> > I guess GL_ALREADY_SIGNALED handling will be done using a check for
> > bo_busy() before calling this.
> 
> I've just read through the mesa code and gl_already_signalled seems to
> be handled already by core mesa code in _mesa_ClientWaitSync (if the
> driver sets syncObject->Status correctly). So I guess the current
> kernel code should work as-is and only the libdrm interface needs some
> colour adjustments around the timeout parameter.

Yeah, matches what I found.

Did you want pointer for timeout in the userspace api?  I don't feel
strongly about it, I just didn't see a use.  The equivalent API I could
think of was select(), where apparently linux returns time unwaited,
while "everyone else" doesn't.  I don't see a strong recommendation
either way from that.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel