From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] drm/i915: timeout parameter for seqno
 wait
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:28:29 -0700
Message-ID: <20120427212829.52b2fc5e@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1335481389-7232-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<1335481389-7232-10-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net>
	<20120427150020.GH5147@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 cloud01.chad-versace.us (184-106-247-128.static.cloud-ips.com
	[184.106.247.128])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818899E76D
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120427150020.GH5147@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 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:00:20 +0200
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:03:06PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Insert a wait parameter in the code so we can possibly timeout on a
> > seqno wait if need be. The code should be functionally the same as
> > before because all the callers will continue to retry if an
> > arbitrary timeout elapses.
> > 
> > We'd like to have nanosecond granularity, but the only way to do
> > this is with hrtimer, and that doesn't fit well with the needs of
> > this code.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> 
> I have to admit, I'm a bit unhappy with this swiss-army-tool
> wait_seqno and what it looks like. What about copy&pasting
> __wait_seqno_timeout, which is always interruptible?
> -Daniel

I'm going to put the onus on you for this bikeshed to test it, and see
how you like it. I have tried have the other function, and I felt this
one looked better. Though I assume I have to fix the rebase error that
Chris pointed out anyway. So I'll do a v3 with the separate function
*after* you confirm you really want it. Otherwise, you'll just get the
rebase fail fix.

Ben