Re: [PATCH] drm/rockchip: Return -EBUSY if there's already a pending flip event v5

From: Daniel Vetter
Date: Tue May 24 2016 - 04:37:57 EST

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:30:50AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:28:42AM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Hi Tomeu,
> >
> > Patch subject: please put the version into the brackets, so [PATCH v5] as it
> > shouldn't be part of the commit log.
> >
> > Am Dienstag, 24. Mai 2016, 09:27:37 schrieb Tomeu Vizoso:
> > > As per the docs, atomic_commit should return -EBUSY "if an asycnhronous
> > > updated is requested and there is an earlier updated pending".
> >
> > > v2: Use the status of the workqueue instead of vop->event, and don't add
> > > a superfluous wait on the workqueue.
> > >
> > > v3: Drop work_busy, as there's a sizeable delay when the worker
> > > finishes, which introduces a race in which the client has already
> > > received the last flip event but the next page flip ioctl will still
> > > return -EBUSY because work_busy returns outdated information.
> > >
> > > v4: Hold dev->event_lock while checking the VOP's event field as
> > > suggested by Daniel Stone.
> > >
> > > v5: Only block if there's outstanding work if it's a blocking call.
> >
> > similarly, please put the changelog below the "---" and above the diffstat.
> drm culture is to keep it above, since it's kinda useful sometimes when
> later on trying to reconstruct wtf was discussed and why a patch was
> merged.

Maybe needs a bit more context: The only stuff you raised in your review
is tiny style nits of pretty much utter irrelevance. No substantial and
material feedback anywehere, and in my opinion in such a case either fix
up the nits when applying (when you feel really strongly about perfect
patches), or just merge as-is.

But sending out content-less bikesheds like these just adds noise and
helps no-one. I think at least some spelling stuff is the minimal bar (but
then just include your r-b tag), but personally I don't even care about
that so much, as long as it's still legible.

Thanks, Daniel
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation