From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from m43-15.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.15]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kmJ87-0001BV-D5 for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:12:52 +0000 From: Kalle Valo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: skip the wait for completion to recovery in shutdown path References: <20201126171553.2097-1-youghand@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 18:12:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Brian Norris's message of "Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:35:44 -0800") Message-ID: <87y2i9egsp.fsf@codeaurora.org> 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: Brian Norris Cc: kuabhs@chromium.org, Youghandhar Chintala , linux-wireless , Doug Anderson , ath10k , Linux Kernel , Rakesh Pillai Brian Norris writes: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM Youghandhar Chintala > wrote: >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c >> @@ -1790,9 +1790,6 @@ static int ath10k_snoc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> reinit_completion(&ar->driver_recovery); >> >> - if (test_bit(ATH10K_SNOC_FLAG_RECOVERY, &ar_snoc->flags)) >> - wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->driver_recovery, 3 * HZ); > > Hmm, this is the only instance of waiting for this completion, which > means that after this patch, 'ar->driver_recovery' is doing exactly > nothing. Should you instead just remove it completely? > > Also, if your patch is correct, it seems like the completion was never > needed in the first place. You should probably address such a claim in > the commit message; is there truly no need to wait here? Or was there > some purpose here, but that purpose was accomplished some other way? > Or was there a purpose, and that purpose was misguided? It feels to me > like it is indeed correct to remove this (shutdown should be performed > promptly; we don't need to delay it just to try to "finish > recovering"), but it's your job to convince the reader. Exactly what I was thinking as well. To me this patch was just looks racy and all the commit log says that it's "unwanted delay". -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k