Re: [PATCH RFC] wimax/i2400m: fixup completion handling for resetting a device

[Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

> Hello.
>
> On 03/20/2015 10:47 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>
>    Sorry for late reply, I'm pretty busy these days.

no hurry on this - this is cleanup work only 

>
>>>> 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.
>
>    You could summarize your intent in the cover letter (PATCH #0).
>

ok - in that case I will repost as you suggested - just thought it
is more readable to keep it in one patch for resolving the open
questions.

>> 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 ?
>
>    I think the RFC patches should still conform to all the usual patch 
> rules. How would we understand whether you intent to split the patch up 
> later, if you didn't even write about it anywhere?
>

I had assumed that a RFC is not intended to be applied anywhere buyt only for review - will clean it up and put the relevant patched code snippet
in #0 then for review.

thx!
hofrat