2010/2/15 Jaime Velasco Juan <jsagarri...@gmail.com>:
> The old code used a false condition so it always waited until
> timeout
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaime Velasco Juan <jsagarri...@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
> index a8e151e..842952f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
> @@ -337,10 +337,12 @@ static void radeon_pm_set_clocks(struct radeon_device
> *rdev)
> rdev->pm.req_vblank |= (1 << 1);
> drm_vblank_get(rdev->ddev, 1);
> }
> - if (rdev->pm.active_crtcs)
> - wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
> - rdev->irq.vblank_queue, 0,
> - msecs_to_jiffies(RADEON_WAIT_VBLANK_TIMEOUT));
> + if (rdev->pm.active_crtcs) {
> + long timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(RADEON_WAIT_VBLANK_TIMEOUT);
> + __wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
> + rdev->irq.vblank_queue, 1,
> + timeout);
> + }
Yeah, it seems logic was wrong, thanks.
Two questions: is there some real reason for using "timeout" variable?
We don't re-use this anywhere. It seems useless, doesn't make code
shorter, forces braces usage and you defined this inside braces, not
on beginning of function, as kernel coding style says. Can you just
drop this redundant variable?
Second: could you say what is "better" in using
__wait_event_interruptible_timeout? Is this faster (doesn't check
condition) or something?
--
Rafał
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLARIS 10 is the OS for Data Centers - provides features such as DTrace,
Predictive Self Healing and Award Winning ZFS. Get Solaris 10 NOW
http://p.sf.net/sfu/solaris-dev2dev
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
