[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Never return 0 if request wait succeeds

[Andrzej Hajda]

On 16.11.2022 12:25, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> According to the docs of i915_request_wait_timeout(), its return value
> "may be zero if the request is unfinished after the timeout expires."
> However, 0 is also returned when the request is found finished right
> after the timeout has expired.
> 
> Since the docs also state: "If the timeout is 0, it will return 1 if the
> fence is signaled.", return 1 also when the fence is found signaled after
> non-zero timeout has expired.

As I understand the patch "drm/i915: Fix i915_request fence wait 
semantics", and the docs "timeout is 0" means the initial value of 
timeout argument and this is handled already on the beginning of the 
function.
In case initial timeout is greater than zero and then it expires, 
function should return 0 regardless of fence state. This is what I have 
understood from reading docs and implementation of 
dma_fence_default_wait [1], which should be the best source of info 
about "dma_fence wait semantic".

As I said already, mixing remaining time and bool in return value of 
dma_fence_wait* functions is very confusing, but changing it would 
require major rework of the framework.

[1]: 
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c#L753

Regards
Andrzej

> 
> Fixes: 7e2e69ed4678 ("drm/i915: Fix i915_request fence wait semantics")
> Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org # v5.17
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 2 ++
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> index f949a9495758a..406ddfafbed4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> @@ -2079,6 +2079,8 @@ long i915_request_wait_timeout(struct i915_request *rq,
>   
>   		timeout = io_schedule_timeout(timeout);
>   	}
> +	if (!timeout)	/* expired but signaled, we shouldn't return 0 */
> +		timeout = 1;
>   	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>   
>   	if (READ_ONCE(wait.tsk))