So don't return -EAGAIN, even in the case of a gpu hang. Remap it to
-EIO instead. Note that this isn't really an issue with
interruptability, but more that we have quite a few codepaths (mostly
around kms stuff) that simply can't handle any errors and hence not
even -EAGAIN. Instead of adding proper failure paths so that we could
restart these ioctls we've opted for the cheap way out of sleeping
non-interruptibly.  Which works everywhere but when the gpu dies,
which this patch fixes.

So essentially interruptible == false means 'wait for the gpu or die
trying'.'

This patch is a bit ugly because intel_ring_begin is all non-interruptible
and hence only returns -EIO. But as the comment in there says,
auditing all the callsites would be a pain.

To avoid duplicating code, reuse i915_gem_check_wedge in __wait_seqno
and intel_wait_ring_buffer. Also use the opportunity to clarify the
different cases in i915_gem_check_wedge a bit with comments.

v2: Don't access dev_priv->mm.interruptible from check_wedge - we
might not hold dev->struct_mutex, making this racy. Instead pass
interruptible in as a parameter. I've noticed this because I've hit a
BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked) at the top of check_wedge. This has been
added in

commit b4aca010


Author: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Date:   Wed Apr 25 20:50:12 2012 -0700

    drm/i915: extract some common olr+wedge code

although that commit is missing any justification for this. I guess
it's just copy&paste, because the same commit add the same BUG_ON
check to check_olr, where it indeed makes sense.

But in check_wedge everything we access is protected by other means,
so this is superflous. And because it now gets in the way (we add a
new caller in __wait_seqno, which can be called without
dev->struct_mutext) let's just remove it.

v3: Group all the i915_gem_check_wedge refactoring into this patch, so
that this patch here is all about not returning -EAGAIN to callsites
that can't handle syscall restarting.

v4: Add clarification what interuptible == fales means in our code,
requested by Ben Widawsky.

v5: Fix EAGAIN mispell noticed by Chris Wilson.

Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Tested-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>