Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752596AbaLEJQI (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 04:16:08 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:61910 "EHLO mail-wg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881AbaLEJQD (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 04:16:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:16:30 +0100 From: Daniel Vetter To: John Stultz Cc: Daniel Vetter , Chris Wilson , Intel Graphics Development , LKML , Daniel Vetter , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly Message-ID: <20141205091630.GI20350@phenom.ffwll.local> Mail-Followup-To: John Stultz , Chris Wilson , Intel Graphics Development , LKML , Daniel Vetter , Thomas Gleixner References: <20141202163506.GG18921@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> <20141203143029.GF32117@phenom.ffwll.local> <20141204104228.GJ32117@phenom.ffwll.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 3.16-2-amd64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:35:44PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz wrote: > >>>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over? > >>> > >>> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion: > >>> > >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/187 > >>> > >>> But if the first attempt doesn't sufficiently stick I tend to chase > >>> the patches any more. But if you want to resurrect this I could ping > >>> Imre and ask him to pick it up again or you could rebase his patches. > >> > >> Well, last I saw the initial patch was buggy, no? I don't think I saw > >> it being resubmitted. > > > > I didn't see your reply in that thread nor in the v2 follow up at > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 Maybe I missed > > it, but response seems to have been lukewarm overall. > > Ok, I wasn't cc'ed on the v2, thanks for the pointer. There's some > general lukewarmness to all things jiffies, since getting rid of them > has been a long term goal forever. But overall that patch set seemed > ok (though I'm not a fan of macro generation of functions). But minor > details.. btw have you seen the other fallout from the ktime->nsec conversion in i915? http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg56445.html Is this just the inaccuracy of nsec_to_jiffies (and why it explicitly states that this is for the scheduler only) or is there some bigger fish in there? Insight very much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/