All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
@ 2017-08-05 19:19 Chris Wilson
  2017-08-05 19:47 ` Chris Wilson
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-08-05 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

The wait-ioctl is optionally supplied a timeout with nanosecond
precision in a s64 field. We use nsecs_to_jiffies64() to convert that
into the jiffies consumed by the scheduler, but internally
nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow (as it's purpose is
for use by the scheduler and not drivers!). So we must guard against the
overflow ourselves, and in the process note that we may then return
much earlier than the timeout selected by the user, so don't report
ETIME unless we do hit the timeout. (Woe betold us though if the user
waits for a year (32bit) and the request is still not complete!)

Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 6 ++++++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 4 ++++
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 2638967211a9..184f4d11de79 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -4144,6 +4144,12 @@ static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
 
 static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 n)
 {
+#if NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ
+	/* nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow */
+	if (n >= (u64)MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET * NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ)
+		return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
+#endif
+
         return min_t(u64, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, nsecs_to_jiffies64(n) + 1);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 44df7dc3f880..b5794add4a3a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -3543,6 +3543,10 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct file *filp,
 		 */
 		if (ret == -ETIME && !nsecs_to_jiffies(arg.timeout_ns))
 			arg.timeout_ns = 0;
+
+		/* Asked to wait beyond the jiffie/scheduler precision */
+		if (ret == -ETIME && arg.timeout_ns)
+			ret = -EAGAIN;
 	}
 
 	i915_gem_object_put(obj);
-- 
2.13.3

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
  2017-08-05 19:19 [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl Chris Wilson
@ 2017-08-05 19:47 ` Chris Wilson
  2017-08-11  7:18   ` Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-08-11  7:13 ` Joonas Lahtinen
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-08-05 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-08-05 20:19:24)
> The wait-ioctl is optionally supplied a timeout with nanosecond
> precision in a s64 field. We use nsecs_to_jiffies64() to convert that
> into the jiffies consumed by the scheduler, but internally
> nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow (as it's purpose is
> for use by the scheduler and not drivers!). So we must guard against the
> overflow ourselves, and in the process note that we may then return
> much earlier than the timeout selected by the user, so don't report
> ETIME unless we do hit the timeout. (Woe betold us though if the user
> waits for a year (32bit) and the request is still not complete!)
> 
> Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 6 ++++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 4 ++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 2638967211a9..184f4d11de79 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -4144,6 +4144,12 @@ static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
>  
>  static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 n)
>  {
> +#if NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ
> +       /* nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow */
> +       if (n >= (u64)MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET * NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ)
> +               return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;

This still overflows, we need n / NSEC_PER_SEC >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ
as MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET is ~LONG_MAX/2

Hmm, so div_u64(n, NSEC_PER_SEC) >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ ?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
  2017-08-05 19:19 [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl Chris Wilson
  2017-08-05 19:47 ` Chris Wilson
@ 2017-08-11  7:13 ` Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-08-11 10:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
  2017-08-11 11:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl (rev2) Patchwork
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joonas Lahtinen @ 2017-08-11  7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

On la, 2017-08-05 at 20:19 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The wait-ioctl is optionally supplied a timeout with nanosecond
> precision in a s64 field. We use nsecs_to_jiffies64() to convert that
> into the jiffies consumed by the scheduler, but internally
> nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow (as it's purpose is
> for use by the scheduler and not drivers!). So we must guard against the
> overflow ourselves, and in the process note that we may then return
> much earlier than the timeout selected by the user, so don't report
> ETIME unless we do hit the timeout. (Woe betold us though if the user
> waits for a year (32bit) and the request is still not complete!)
> 
> Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

<SNIP>

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 44df7dc3f880..b5794add4a3a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3543,6 +3543,10 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>  		 */
>  		if (ret == -ETIME && !nsecs_to_jiffies(arg.timeout_ns))
>  			arg.timeout_ns = 0;
> +
> +		/* Asked to wait beyond the jiffie/scheduler precision */
> +		if (ret == -ETIME && arg.timeout_ns)
> +			ret = -EAGAIN;

-EAGAIN is documented as "GPU wedged" in the ioctl documentation. So
better update that documentation.

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
  2017-08-05 19:47 ` Chris Wilson
@ 2017-08-11  7:18   ` Joonas Lahtinen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joonas Lahtinen @ 2017-08-11  7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

On la, 2017-08-05 at 20:47 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-08-05 20:19:24)

<SNIP>

> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -4144,6 +4144,12 @@ static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
> >  
> >  static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 n)
> >  {
> > +#if NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ
> > +       /* nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow */
> > +       if (n >= (u64)MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET * NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ)
> > +               return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
> 
> This still overflows, we need n / NSEC_PER_SEC >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ
> as MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET is ~LONG_MAX/2
> 
> Hmm, so div_u64(n, NSEC_PER_SEC) >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ ?

This reflects the original test best.

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
  2017-08-05 19:19 [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl Chris Wilson
  2017-08-05 19:47 ` Chris Wilson
  2017-08-11  7:13 ` Joonas Lahtinen
@ 2017-08-11 10:57 ` Chris Wilson
  2017-08-14 10:42   ` Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-08-11 11:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl (rev2) Patchwork
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-08-11 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

The wait-ioctl is optionally supplied a timeout with nanosecond
precision in a s64 field. We use nsecs_to_jiffies64() to convert that
into the jiffies consumed by the scheduler, but internally
nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow (as it's purpose is
for use by the scheduler and not drivers!). So we must guard against the
overflow ourselves, and in the process note that we may then return
much earlier than the timeout selected by the user, so don't report
ETIME unless we do hit the timeout. (Woe betold us though if the user
waits for a year (32bit) and the request is still not complete!)

v2: Refine overflow detection (to not include an overffow itself)

Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 +++++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 6 +++++-
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 907603cba447..4f9f7b6ac276 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -4171,6 +4171,11 @@ static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
 
 static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 n)
 {
+	/* nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow */
+	if (NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ &&
+	    div_u64(n, NSEC_PER_SEC) >= MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET / HZ)
+		return MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET;
+
         return min_t(u64, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, nsecs_to_jiffies64(n) + 1);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 000a764ee8d9..dbda7d078245 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -3284,7 +3284,7 @@ static unsigned long to_wait_timeout(s64 timeout_ns)
  *  -ERESTARTSYS: signal interrupted the wait
  *  -ENONENT: object doesn't exist
  * Also possible, but rare:
- *  -EAGAIN: GPU wedged
+ *  -EAGAIN: incomplete, restart syscall
  *  -ENOMEM: damn
  *  -ENODEV: Internal IRQ fail
  *  -E?: The add request failed
@@ -3332,6 +3332,10 @@ i915_gem_wait_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file)
 		 */
 		if (ret == -ETIME && !nsecs_to_jiffies(args->timeout_ns))
 			args->timeout_ns = 0;
+
+		/* Asked to wait beyond the jiffie/scheduler precision? */
+		if (ret == -ETIME && args->timeout_ns)
+			ret = -EAGAIN;
 	}
 
 	i915_gem_object_put(obj);
-- 
2.13.3

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl (rev2)
  2017-08-05 19:19 [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl Chris Wilson
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2017-08-11 10:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
@ 2017-08-11 11:27 ` Patchwork
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-08-11 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson; +Cc: intel-gfx

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl (rev2)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/28420/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 28420v2 drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/28420/revisions/2/mbox/

Test gem_exec_flush:
        Subgroup basic-batch-kernel-default-uc:
                pass       -> FAIL       (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100007
Test kms_flip:
        Subgroup basic-flip-vs-modeset:
                skip       -> PASS       (fi-skl-x1585l) fdo#101781
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup suspend-read-crc-pipe-b:
                dmesg-warn -> PASS       (fi-byt-n2820) fdo#101705

fdo#100007 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
fdo#101781 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101781
fdo#101705 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101705

fi-bdw-5557u     total:279  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:11  time:444s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:14  time:431s
fi-blb-e6850     total:279  pass:224  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:54  time:355s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:279  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:36  time:546s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:523s
fi-byt-j1900     total:279  pass:254  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:522s
fi-byt-n2820     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:508s
fi-glk-2a        total:279  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:602s
fi-hsw-4770      total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:445s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:279  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16  time:419s
fi-ilk-650       total:279  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:50  time:421s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:497s
fi-ivb-3770      total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:474s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:467s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:586s
fi-kbl-r         total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:592s
fi-pnv-d510      total:279  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:55  time:529s
fi-skl-6260u     total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:461s
fi-skl-6700k     total:279  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:18  time:475s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:477s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:279  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:13  time:438s
fi-skl-x1585l    total:279  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:10  time:499s
fi-snb-2520m     total:279  pass:251  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:547s
fi-snb-2600      total:279  pass:249  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:29  time:405s

fbb8288699ef622bbfc6e10bdca6773a16f93fac drm-tip: 2017y-08m-11d-09h-03m-47s UTC integration manifest
b87953debf0e drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_5379/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
  2017-08-11 10:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
@ 2017-08-14 10:42   ` Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-08-15 16:41     ` Chris Wilson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joonas Lahtinen @ 2017-08-14 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The wait-ioctl is optionally supplied a timeout with nanosecond
> precision in a s64 field. We use nsecs_to_jiffies64() to convert that
> into the jiffies consumed by the scheduler, but internally
> nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow (as it's purpose is
> for use by the scheduler and not drivers!). So we must guard against the
> overflow ourselves, and in the process note that we may then return
> much earlier than the timeout selected by the user, so don't report
> ETIME unless we do hit the timeout. (Woe betold us though if the user
> waits for a year (32bit) and the request is still not complete!)
> 
> v2: Refine overflow detection (to not include an overffow itself)
> 
> Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl
  2017-08-14 10:42   ` Joonas Lahtinen
@ 2017-08-15 16:41     ` Chris Wilson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-08-15 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Joonas Lahtinen, intel-gfx; +Cc: Daniel Vetter

Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-08-14 11:42:05)
> On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 11:57 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > The wait-ioctl is optionally supplied a timeout with nanosecond
> > precision in a s64 field. We use nsecs_to_jiffies64() to convert that
> > into the jiffies consumed by the scheduler, but internally
> > nsecs_to_jiffies64() does not guard against overflow (as it's purpose is
> > for use by the scheduler and not drivers!). So we must guard against the
> > overflow ourselves, and in the process note that we may then return
> > much earlier than the timeout selected by the user, so don't report
> > ETIME unless we do hit the timeout. (Woe betold us though if the user
> > waits for a year (32bit) and the request is still not complete!)
> > 
> > v2: Refine overflow detection (to not include an overffow itself)
> > 
> > Reported-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason.ekstrand@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>

And pushed, thanks for the review.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2017-08-15 16:42 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-08-05 19:19 [PATCH] drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl Chris Wilson
2017-08-05 19:47 ` Chris Wilson
2017-08-11  7:18   ` Joonas Lahtinen
2017-08-11  7:13 ` Joonas Lahtinen
2017-08-11 10:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
2017-08-14 10:42   ` Joonas Lahtinen
2017-08-15 16:41     ` Chris Wilson
2017-08-11 11:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Handle full s64 precision for wait-ioctl (rev2) Patchwork

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.