On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:53:32PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> Em Qua, 2016-09-14 às 13:10 +0100, Dave Gordon escreveu:
> > Commentary from Chris Wilson's original version:
> >
> > >
> > > I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with
> > > lots of
> > > debug enabled (KASAN,
Em Qua, 2016-09-14 às 13:10 +0100, Dave Gordon escreveu:
> Commentary from Chris Wilson's original version:
>
> >
> > I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with
> > lots of
> > debug enabled (KASAN, lockdep, mmio_debug). Thinking that we were
> > mishandling the timeout, I t
Em Qua, 2016-09-14 às 10:22 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 08:40:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with
> > lots of
> > debug enabled (KASAN, lockdep, mmio_debug). Thinking that we were
> > mishandling the t
Commentary from Chris Wilson's original version:
> I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with lots of
> debug enabled (KASAN, lockdep, mmio_debug). Thinking that we were
> mishandling the timeout, I tried to ensure that we loop at least once
> after first testing COND. Howeve
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 08:40:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with lots of
> debug enabled (KASAN, lockdep, mmio_debug). Thinking that we were
> mishandling the timeout, I tried to ensure that we loop at least once
> after first testing
Em Ter, 2016-09-13 às 20:40 +0100, Chris Wilson escreveu:
> I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with lots
> of
> debug enabled (KASAN, lockdep, mmio_debug). Thinking that we were
> mishandling the timeout, I tried to ensure that we loop at least once
> after first testing CO
I was looking at some wait_for() timeouts on a slow system, with lots of
debug enabled (KASAN, lockdep, mmio_debug). Thinking that we were
mishandling the timeout, I tried to ensure that we loop at least once
after first testing COND. However, the double test of COND either side
of the timeout chec
