From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com (Srinidhi Kasagar) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:48:23 +0530 Subject: Fwd: [PATCH 1/7] I2c-nomadik: Fix the usage of wait_for_completion_timeout In-Reply-To: <20121115101820.GC418@pengutronix.de> References: <1352222317.15558.1584.camel@cliu38-desktop-build> <20121115084858.GA29668@bnru10> <20121115092953.GA418@pengutronix.de> <20121115095741.GA6280@bnru10> <20121115101820.GC418@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20121115111822.GA3911@bnru10> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:18:20 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:27:42PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:29:53 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > - if (timeout < 0) { > > > > > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev, > > > > > - "wait_for_completion_timeout " > > > > > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout); > > > > > - status = timeout; > > > > > - } > > > > > - > > > > No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout. > > > > > > Looking at the patch context, such code comes later. > > But it causes regressions; without looking at the "later" code, we can't afford merging > > this code now. > > Later as in "a few lines later" not "some time later". Or am I missing > something else? I was too fast in reading emails after my short vacation...Sorry. Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar regards/srinidhi