Hi Alex,
On 23 September 2016 at 18:24, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:24AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Since fence_wait_timeout_reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() with a
>> timeout of 0 becomes reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(), we do not
>> need to handle such
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:24AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Since fence_wait_timeout_reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() with a
> timeout of 0 becomes reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(), we do not
> need to handle such conversion in the caller. The only challenge are
> those callers that
Am 29.08.2016 um 09:08 schrieb Chris Wilson:
> Since fence_wait_timeout_reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() with a
> timeout of 0 becomes reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(), we do not
> need to handle such conversion in the caller. The only challenge are
> those callers that wish to
Since fence_wait_timeout_reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() with a
timeout of 0 becomes reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(), we do not
need to handle such conversion in the caller. The only challenge are
those callers that wish to differentiate the error code between the
nonblocking busy
