All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/net/wan/wanxl.c: time_before(timeout, jiffies) -> jiffies, timeout
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:01:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3fxug2mk3.fsf@maximus.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1206031566.26345.63.camel@localhost> (Joe Perches's message of "Thu\, 20 Mar 2008 09\:46\:06 -0700")

Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> writes:

>>  	while ((stat = readl(card->plx + PLX_MAILBOX_0)) != 0) {
>> -		if (time_before(timeout, jiffies)) {
>> +		if (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
>>  			printk(KERN_WARNING "wanXL %s: timeout waiting for"
>>  			       " PUTS to complete\n", pci_name(pdev));
>>  			wanxl_pci_remove_one(pdev);
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have a schedule() in those
> while loops too?

There is a schedule() here:

        timeout = jiffies + 20 * HZ;
        while ((stat = readl(card->plx + PLX_MAILBOX_0)) != 0) {
                if (time_before(timeout, jiffies)) {
                        printk(KERN_WARNING "wanXL %s: timeout waiting for"
                               " PUTS to complete\n", pci_name(pdev));
                        wanxl_pci_remove_one(pdev);
                        return -ENODEV;
                }

                switch(stat & 0xC0) {
                case 0x00:      /* hmm - PUTS completed with non-zero code? */
                case 0x80:      /* PUTS still testing the hardware */
                        break;

                default:
                        printk(KERN_WARNING "wanXL %s: PUTS test 0x%X"
                               " failed\n", pci_name(pdev), stat & 0x30);
                        wanxl_pci_remove_one(pdev);
                        return -ENODEV;
                }

                schedule();
        }

The timeout is 20 seconds, busy loop wouldn't make any sense.

> Maybe a more generic macro / statement expression
> would be more readable?

I don't think so. BTW the only "long" loop is the POTS one (after hw
reset or rmmod + insmod), IIRC it takes about 1 second for every MB of
installed DRAM. Officially you can have 1 or 4 MB, and 16 MB module
works (IIRC, on my card) as well - thus 20 * HZ timeout.

A couple of reversed time_{after,before}, yes (with reversed
arguments, i.e., functionally equivalent but probably harder to
parse). Will look at them.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-03-24 15:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-20 15:43 [PATCH] drivers/net/wan/wanxl.c: time_before(timeout, jiffies) -> jiffies, timeout Roel Kluin
2008-03-20 16:46 ` Joe Perches
2008-03-20 20:23   ` Roel Kluin
2008-03-20 21:06     ` Joe Perches
2008-03-24 15:01   ` Krzysztof Halasa [this message]
2008-03-24 15:52     ` Joe Perches
2008-03-24 20:22       ` Krzysztof Halasa
2008-03-24 14:42 ` Krzysztof Halasa

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=m3fxug2mk3.fsf@maximus.localdomain \
    --to=khc@pm.waw.pl \
    --cc=12o3l@tiscali.nl \
    --cc=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.