On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:49:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:31:42PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
>> > argument. However, when waiting for multiple
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:49:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:31:42PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
> > argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure
> > that the timeou
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:31:42PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
> argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure
> that the timeout was still positive on the later requests. This is more
> simply done
We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure
that the timeout was still positive on the later requests. This is more
simply done inside __i915_wait_request.
Fixes regression introduced in
commit b47
