On 14/11/2017 21:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
We should long past the time of trying to use wait_for() from inside atomic contexts, so add a might_sleep() check to prevent misuse.Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 11 ++--------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h index fd64a5e8ea12..a898ded7efe9 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h @@ -47,14 +47,11 @@ * contexts. Note that it's important that we check the condition again after * having timed out, since the timeout could be due to preemption or similar and * we've never had a chance to check the condition before the timeout. - * - * TODO: When modesetting has fully transitioned to atomic, the below - * drm_can_sleep() can be removed and in_atomic()/!in_atomic() asserts - * added. */ #define _wait_for(COND, US, W) ({ \ unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(US) + 1; \ int ret__; \ + might_sleep(); \ for (;;) { \ bool expired__ = time_after(jiffies, timeout__); \ if (COND) { \ @@ -65,11 +62,7 @@ ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT; \ break; \ } \ - if ((W) && drm_can_sleep()) { \ - usleep_range((W), (W)*2); \ - } else { \ - cpu_relax(); \ - } \ + usleep_range((W), (W)*2); \ } \ ret__; \ })
Seems OK under my understanding how things work at least. Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
