Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

Daniel Vetter
2014-12-05T09:16:02Z

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:35:44PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over?
> >>>
> >>> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion:
> >>>
> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/187
> >>>
> >>> But if the first attempt doesn't sufficiently stick I tend to chase
> >>> the patches any more. But if you want to resurrect this I could ping
> >>> Imre and ask him to pick it up again or you could rebase his patches.
> >>
> >> Well, last I saw the initial patch was buggy, no? I don't think I saw
> >> it being resubmitted.
> >
> > I didn't see your reply in that thread nor in the v2 follow up at
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 Maybe I missed
> > it, but response seems to have been lukewarm overall.
>
> Ok, I wasn't cc'ed on the v2, thanks for the pointer. There's some
> general lukewarmness to all things jiffies, since getting rid of them
> has been a long term goal forever. But overall that patch set seemed
> ok (though I'm not a fan of macro generation of functions). But minor
> details..

btw have you seen the other fallout from the ktime->nsec conversion in
i915?

http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg56445.html

Is this just the inaccuracy of nsec_to_jiffies (and why it explicitly
states that this is for the scheduler only) or is there some bigger fish
in there?

Insight very much appreciated.

Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch