On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 3/17/2015 12:49 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >> wait_for_completion_timeout return 0 (timeout) or >=1 (completion) so the >> check >> for > 0 in the else branch is always true and can be dropped. The comment >> seems >> misleading as it is always going to pass the result up. > >> The sync of the completion access with __i2400m_dev_reset_handle (which >> checks >> for if (i2400m->reset_ctx) could race if i2400m_reset() returns negative >> so >> the resetting of i2400m->reset_ctx == NULL is moved to the out: path. > >> As wait_for_completion_timeout returns unsigned long not int, an >> appropriately >> named variable of type unsigned long is added and assignments fixed up. > > Don't try to do several things in one patch. > normaly yes - this was marked as RFC and if I had split it up into 3 patches it would be hard to see how it fits together without actually applying them.
The intent was to get feedback notably on moving i2400m->reset_ctx == NULL and if dropping the (I think missleading) comment about negative return is ok Should this be in seperate patches even as RFC ? Once that is clarified it will go out as 3 patchs. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
