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 13:37:46 -0700
Message-ID: <20120421133746.16e49c54@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> <20120421091217.0897735e@bwidawsk.net>
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 8C8039E794
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120421091217.0897735e@bwidawsk.net>
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: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:12:17 -0700
Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> wrote:

> 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
> > 

NVM, got them both. Thanks.