On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 00:33 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:37 +0100, Peter Clifton <pc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > I noticed that the patch changes the semantics of some of the wait_for > > calls. Previously, many were called with a zero msleep parameter - > > meaning the call would not msleep. With this patch, the cases below will > > now msleep(1), rather than not msleep'ing at all. > > Intentionally. The choices I made when adding the wait_for() were fairly > arbitrary. I'd err on the side of sleeping the extra milliseconds rather > than spend 500 microseconds busy-spinning. (I've have a different opinion > if these ever become the rate-limiting step in modesetting... ;-)
Fair enough.. it just looked like it might have been a mistake since you had both re-factored the interface, and altered the semantics of some of its callers within the same commit. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me) _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
