From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] drm/i915: wait render timeout ioctl
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:12:17 -0700
Message-ID: <20120421091217.0897735e@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1334971412-4826-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1334971412-4826-10-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1335001339_11300@CP5-2952>
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 cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB819E75C
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1335001339_11300@CP5-2952>
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: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:41:55 +0100
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:23:31 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> wrote:
> > +	ret = i915_seqno_wait_timed(ring, seqno, true, &timeout);
> > +	if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS)
> > +		ret = -EINTR;
> Don't convert it here, pass ERESTARTSYS to the system call handler
> which decides how to handle it.
> 
> > +	else if (ret == -ETIME) {
> > +		ret = -EBUSY;
> 
> Why the semantic change? ETIME for timer timed out still seems
> appropriate.

I must be missing something. Can you point to me where the system call
handler converts these? The only reason for the change was to prevent
passing the internal return types to user space.

> 
> I think this whole interface is a stop-gap solution for pollable sync
> objects without a clear use case. Do we have a spec for a feature
> wishing to build upon this interface?

Good point. This is primarily for glClientWaitSync. I will update the
commit message with this information.

> -Chris
>