On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:49:44PM +0300, Arto Merilainen wrote: > Syncpoint wait returned EAGAIN if it was called with zero timeout. > This patch modifies the function to return ETIMEDOUT.
This description is a bit redundant, because it repeats in prose what the code does. I'd rather see a description of why the change is necessary. Thinking about it, maybe it would be good to have two separate error codes. Keeping -EAGAIN for the case where a zero timeout was passed doesn't sound too bad to differentiate it from the case where a non- zero timeout was passed and it actually timed out. What do you think? Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20130526/24d46598/attachment.pgp>
