Re: [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()

2020-06-02 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 12-05-2020 om 11:08 schreef Christian König: > Am 12.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter: >> But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives. >> >> One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional, >> or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more >>

Re: [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()

2020-05-12 Thread Christian König
Am 12.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter: But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives. One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional, or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more defensive option. But in the interest of locking down the cros

[RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()

2020-05-12 Thread Daniel Vetter
But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives. One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional, or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more defensive option. But in the interest of locking down the cross-driver dma_fence rules we might want to be m