From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] drm/i915: wait render timeout ioctl Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:41:55 +0100 Message-ID: <1335001339_11300@CP5-2952> References: <1334971412-4826-1-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> <1334971412-4826-10-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E245D9E927 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2012 02:42:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1334971412-4826-10-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Ben Widawsky , Ben Widawsky List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:23:31 -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > + ret = i915_seqno_wait_timed(ring, seqno, true, &timeout); > + if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS) > + ret = -EINTR; Don't convert it here, pass ERESTARTSYS to the system call handler which decides how to handle it. > + else if (ret == -ETIME) { > + ret = -EBUSY; Why the semantic change? ETIME for timer timed out still seems appropriate. I think this whole interface is a stop-gap solution for pollable sync objects without a clear use case. Do we have a spec for a feature wishing to build upon this interface? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre