From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from hofr.at ([212.69.189.236] helo=mail.hofr.at) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YWhvN-0001uV-Es for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:00:02 +0000 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:59:38 +0100 From: Nicholas Mc Guire Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type Message-ID: <20150314085938.GA13323@opentech.at> References: <1426175362-8640-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Michal Kazior Cc: Network Development , linux-wireless , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" , Kalle Valo , Nicholas Mc Guire On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Michal Kazior wrote: > On 12 March 2015 at 16:49, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > Return type of wait_for_completion_timeout is unsigned long not int. > > An appropriately named unsigned long is added and the assignments fixed up. > > Rather than returning 0 (timeout) or a more or less random remaining time > > (completion success) this return 0 or 1 which also resolves the type of the > > functions being int. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire > > --- > > > > Checking the call-sites of ath10k_wmi_wait_for_unified_ready and > > ath10k_wmi_wait_for_service_ready the positive return value (remaining > > time in jiffies) is never passed up the call-chain nor used so it is > > cleaner to treat this like a boolean success/fail only (actually the two > > functions should probably be of type bool - but that does not seem to be > > common practice in the ath10k code base) > > It'd make sense to have these functions return 0 or -ETIMEDOUT. In > that case both call sites would need to be adjusted to treat "< 0" or > "!x" as an error (instead of the current "<= 0") condition and not set > -ETIMEDOUT themselves. > looking at the call sites in ath10k_core_start more or less all other initialization calls will treate 0 as success and !=0 as failure so this is the cleaner solution. as its all now status = call() if(status) error patch just posted. thx! hofrat _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k