On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:42:35AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:03:25 +,
> Chris Wilson wrote:
> >
> > The current implementation of drm_read() faces a number of issues:
> >
> > 1. Upon an error, it consumes the event which may lead to the client
> > blocking.
> > 2. Up
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 06:19:54PM -0800, shuang...@intel.com wrote:
> Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact:
> shuang...@intel.com)
> -Summary-
> Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:03:25PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The current implementation of drm_read() faces a number of issues:
>
> 1. Upon an error, it consumes the event which may lead to the client
> blocking.
> 2. Upon an error, it forgets about events already copied
> 3. If it fails to cop
At Thu, 4 Dec 2014 21:03:25 +,
Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> The current implementation of drm_read() faces a number of issues:
>
> 1. Upon an error, it consumes the event which may lead to the client
> blocking.
> 2. Upon an error, it forgets about events already copied
> 3. If it fails to copy a
Tested-By: PRC QA PRTS (Patch Regression Test System Contact:
shuang...@intel.com)
-Summary-
Platform Delta drm-intel-nightly Series Applied
PNV 364/364
The current implementation of drm_read() faces a number of issues:
1. Upon an error, it consumes the event which may lead to the client
blocking.
2. Upon an error, it forgets about events already copied
3. If it fails to copy a single event with O_NONBLOCK it falls into a
infinite loop of reportin
