[PATCH 1/2] reservation: wait only with non-zero timeout specified (v3)

[Sumit Semwal]

Hi Jammy, All,


On 21 January 2015 at 23:04, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
> <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> On 21-01-15 17:16, Alex Deucher wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Maarten Lankhorst
>>> <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> Op 21-01-15 om 11:35 schreef Jammy Zhou:
>>>>> When the timeout value passed to reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcuy,
>>>>> is zero, no wait should be done if the fences are not signaled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Return '1' for idle and '0' for busy if the specified timeout is '0'
>>>>> to keep consistent with the case of non-zero timeout.
>>>>>
>>>>> v2: call fence_put if not signaled in the case of timeout==0
>>>>>
>>>>> v3: switch to reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jammy Zhou <Jammy.Zhou at amd.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>
>>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-By: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com>
>>>
>>> Dave, Maarten,
>>>
>>> Do you want to pick these up, or would you rather I pulled them through my tree?
>> This goes through Sumit Semwal's tree. He's the dma-buf maintainer and I already made him aware of the patches.
>
Both these patches are now pulled and pushed out to my for-next branch.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alex

-- 
Thanks and Best regards,
Sumit.