Am 15.10.21 um 13:57 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
Commit ada5c48b11a3 ("dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_wait_timeout") accidentally started mishandling timeout = 0, by forcing a blocking wait with timeout = 1 passed to fences. This is not intended, as timeout = 0 may be used for peeking, similar to test_signaled.
Fixes: ada5c48b11a3 ("dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_wait_timeout") Cc: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com
Sorry for the delay, back from sick leave just today.
Good catch, but when I read the old code correctly that was also broken before by passing in 1 to dma_fence_wait_timeout() for a timeout of 0.
drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c index 9eb2baa387d4..70a8082660c5 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c @@ -617,18 +617,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_resv_get_fences); long dma_resv_wait_timeout(struct dma_resv *obj, bool wait_all, bool intr, unsigned long timeout) {
- long ret = timeout ? timeout : 1;
- long ret = timeout ?: 1;
Please don't change the coding style here.
Apart from that looks good to me.
Christian.
struct dma_resv_iter cursor; struct dma_fence *fence; dma_resv_iter_begin(&cursor, obj, wait_all); dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, intr, timeout);if (ret <= 0)break;
ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(fence, intr, ret);if (ret <= 0) {dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor);return ret;}
if (timeout)timeout = ret;