Re: ide_timer_expiry() - shouldn't 'wait' be int?

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>]

On Monday 02 March 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> >>vi drivers/ide/ide-io.c +906 and note:
> 
> >>void ide_timer_expiry (unsigned long data)
> >>{
> >>	ide_expiry_t *expiry = hwif->expiry;
> >>	...
> >>	unsigned long   wait = -1;
> >>		...
> >>		if (expiry) {
> >>			...
> >>			wait = expiry(drive);
> >>			if (wait > 0) { /* continue */
> 
> >>also note that in include/linux/ide.h:883:
> 
> >>typedef int (ide_expiry_t)(ide_drive_t *);
> 
> >>doesn't this mean that expiry returns int, and wait therefore should
> >>be int as well?
> 
> > It does... and it seems like it could cause insanely long timeouts for:
> 
> > * ATA_DMA_ERR error in dma_timer_expiry()
> 
> > * commands without ->expiry in tc86c001_timer_expiry()
> >   (TC86C001 IDE controller only)
> 
> > This is 2.6.29 material, care to make a patch?
> 
>     Er, it's not that bad as it gets cast back to *int* when calling 
> ide_dma_timer_expiry().

This case yes, however look at "wait > 0" one:

On -1 returned from ->expiry code sets "rather" long timeouts
(4294967295/HZ on 32-bit...).