Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-01-15 10:15:45)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-01-15 10:08:01)
> > If it compiles, and works, assuming we have tests cases which exercise
> > both paths, then it is obviously fine.
>
> The no-timeout variants are using for inter-engine signaling, the
> timeout variant
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-01-15 10:08:01)
>
> On 15/01/2018 09:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > As the timeout mechanism has grown more and more complicated, using
> > multiple deferred tasks and more than doubling the size of our struct,
> > split the two implementations to streamline the simpler
On 15/01/2018 09:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
As the timeout mechanism has grown more and more complicated, using
multiple deferred tasks and more than doubling the size of our struct,
split the two implementations to streamline the simpler no-timeout
callback variant.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
