From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1YWSKR-0004Cf-Ud for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:20:52 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type References: <1426175362-8640-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:20:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1426175362-8640-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> (Nicholas Mc Guire's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:49:22 -0400") Message-ID: <87bnjwrhse.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Nicholas Mc Guire Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ath10k@lists.infradead.org Nicholas Mc Guire writes: > 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 Why does patch 2 in this patchset have RFC in the title but patches 1 and 3 not? That just makes me confused, I can't tell what you want me to do with the patches. Normally I just drop all patches (or patchsets) which have RFC, and that's what I'm going to do now. To save everyone's time, when submitting something please state clearly what's your intention. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k