Hi Lucas, On 23 September 2016 at 18:25, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:25AM +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 wish to differentiate the error code between the >> nonblocking busy check and potentially blocking wait. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> Cc: Lucas Stach <l.st...@pengutronix.de> >> Cc: Russell King <linux+etna...@armlinux.org.uk> >> Cc: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmei...@gmail.com> > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > Could you please let me know if this is in your tree already, or would you like me to take it via drm-misc (in which case, an Acked-by would be fabulous!)
Thanks and best, Sumit. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
