Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-16 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > So there's 3 competing proposals for what wait_ioctl should do wrt > -EIO: > > - return -EIO when the gpu is wedged. Not terribly useful for > userspace since it might race with a hang and then there's no > guarantee that a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-03 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 09:50:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:20:02AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:13:10AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:04:23AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-03 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:20:02AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:13:10AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:04:23AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:11:12AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > So there's 3 competing proposals for what wait_ioctl should do wrt > > > -EIO: > > > > > > -

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-01 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:04:23AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:11:12AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > So there's 3 competing

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-01 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:13:10AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:04:23AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:28:08AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:11:12AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-12-01 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:11:12AM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > So there's 3 competing proposals for what wait_ioctl should do wrt > > -EIO: > > > > - return -EIO when the gpu is wedged. Not terribly useful for > > userspace

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-11-30 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > So there's 3 competing proposals for what wait_ioctl should do wrt > -EIO: > > - return -EIO when the gpu is wedged. Not terribly useful for > userspace since it might race with a hang and then there's no > guarantee that a

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] tests/gem_eio: New ABI - no EIO even from wait_ioctl

2015-11-26 Thread Daniel Vetter
So there's 3 competing proposals for what wait_ioctl should do wrt -EIO: - return -EIO when the gpu is wedged. Not terribly useful for userspace since it might race with a hang and then there's no guarantee that a subsequent execbuf won't end up in an -EIO. Terminally wedge really can only