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 more aggressive.
Cc: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> Cc: Christian König <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> --- drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c index 052a41e2451c..6802125349fb 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c @@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout) if (WARN_ON(timeout < 0)) return -EINVAL; + if (timeout > 0) + might_sleep(); + trace_dma_fence_wait_start(fence); if (fence->ops->wait) ret = fence->ops->wait(fence, intr, timeout); -- 2.26.2 _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
