From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ide_timer_expiry() - shouldn't 'wait' be int?
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:15:53 +0100
Message-ID: <200903021715.53699.bzolnier@gmail.com>
References: <49ABEAC0.40407@gmail.com> <49ABFF0D.2070600@ru.mvista.com> <200903021651.01867.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f178.google.com ([209.85.218.178]:60452 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753411AbZCBQOO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:14:14 -0500
Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so1995091bwz.37
        for <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:14:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <200903021651.01867.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
Cc: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Monday 02 March 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Monday 02 March 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Hello, I 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;
> > 
> > >    Hm, haven't nothiced that this is *unsigned*.
> > 
> > >>         ...
> > >>         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 rather means that ide_expiry_t() should return unsigned.
> > 
> >     Er, not really, as it can return -1 too.
> 
> It can just return 0 instead.

This time I got confused.  ide_dma_timeout_retry() takes different actions
depending on error == -1 and error == 0.

[ BTW I worked on unifying those cases so ->dma_test_irq call can be moved
  out from ide_dma_timeout_retry() to ide_timer_expiry() (=> it can be later
  merged with ->expiry tests)... ]

Thanks,
Bart