[PATCH 5/5] reservation: revert "wait only with non-zero timeout specified (v3)" v2

Daniel Vetter daniel at ffwll.ch
Tue Nov 8 09:27:35 UTC 2016


On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:55:30PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo at padovan.org> wrote:
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > 2016-10-20 Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de>:
> >
> >> From: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> >>
> >> This reverts commit fb8b7d2b9d80e1e71f379e57355936bd2b024be9.
> >>
> >> Otherwise signaling might never be activated on the fences. This can
> >> result in infinite waiting with hardware which has unreliable interrupts.
> >>
> >> v2: still return one when the timeout is zero and we don't have any fences.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou at amd.com> (v1)
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 5 +----
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan at collabora.co.uk>
> 
> I've rebased these patches based on the fence renaming in drm-next.
> Should I pull these in through my tree or should they go in through
> drm-misc or the dma-buf tree?  If the later, I'll send out the rebased
> patches.

If there's no amdgpu deps I think best to merge through drm-misc (which
now also contains dma-buf stuff, maintainers patch should go out as soon
as the new drm-misc.git is live).
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch


More information about the dri-devel mailing list