From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>
To: "Zhou, Jammy" <Jammy.Zhou@amd.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reservation: wait only with non-zero timeout specified (v3)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 10:12:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54BF6D65.9080603@canonical.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <FD5696F5CDD4B04D92C97DB96167DECA16011475@SCYBEXDAG04.amd.com>
Hey,
Op 14-01-15 om 03:16 schreef Zhou, Jammy:
>>> I think it would be best to leave timeout=0 returning 0. Not handling it differently gives the same semantics as used by fence_wait_time and wait_event_timeout.
>>> Are there really many cases in which you don't know if timeout = 0 before or not?
>> Yeah I think with this it's more important to be consistent with all the other wait_something primitives the kernel exposes.
> Okay. I think we can live with that from driver perspective by handling timeout==0 and timeout>0 differently.
> But it should still be worth adding some notes for reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu that the return value cannot be used to judge if the fences are signaled or not when timeout==0.
>
Oops it looks like I was wrong here..
Looking more closely at wait_event_timeout, ___wait_cond_timeout modifies __ret which makes it explicitly handle timeout = 0 by testing.
If you resend your patch I will ack it, but can you send a patch for fixing fence_wait_timeout too to clear any possible confusion?
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-21 9:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-13 9:36 [PATCH] reservation: wait only with non-zero timeout specified (v3) Jammy Zhou
2015-01-13 9:04 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-01-13 9:19 ` Zhou, Jammy
2015-01-13 9:22 ` Christian König
2015-01-13 10:18 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-01-13 22:10 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-01-14 2:16 ` Zhou, Jammy
2015-01-21 9:12 ` Maarten Lankhorst [this message]
2015-01-21 9:35 ` Zhou, Jammy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54BF6D65.9080603@canonical.com \
--to=maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com \
--cc=Alexander.Deucher@amd.com \
--cc=Christian.Koenig@amd.com \
--cc=Jammy.Zhou@amd.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox