On 18/07/2019 14:13, Chunming Zhou wrote:
if WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT isn't set and in the meanwhile no underlying fence on syncobj, then return non-block error code to user sapce.
Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou david1.zhou@amd.com
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c index 361a01a08c18..929f7c64f9a2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ int drm_syncobj_find_fence(struct drm_file *file_private, return 0; dma_fence_put(*fence); } else {
ret = -EINVAL;
ret = -ENOTBLK;
This will only return the new error when there is no chain fence in the syncobj?
Don't you want the new error code after dma_fence_chain_find_seqno() too?
Which make me realize there is probably a bug with this code :
ret = dma_fence_chain_find_seqno(fence, point); if (!ret) return 0; dma_fence_put(*fence);
Sounds like the condition should be
if (ret)
return ret;
I realize we have introduced a blocking behavior on the transfer ioctl.
If we're going to change this to return EWOULDBLOCK, we might want to get rid of it.
-Lionel
}
if (!(flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT)) @@ -832,7 +832,7 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs, if (flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_FOR_SUBMIT) { continue; } else {
timeout = -EINVAL;
timeout = -ENOTBLK; goto cleanup_entries; }