From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <52AB1B14.6030905@st.com> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:35:00 +0000 From: Angus Clark MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/36] mtd: st_spi_fsm: Supply framework for device requests References: <1385727565-25794-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1385727565-25794-5-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20131210201943.GC27149@ld-irv-0074.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <20131210201943.GC27149@ld-irv-0074.broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Angus CLARK , Lee Jones , linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 12/10/2013 08:19 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:18:53PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: >> --- a/drivers/mtd/devices/st_spi_fsm.c >> +static void stfsm_wait_seq(struct stfsm *fsm) >> +{ >> + unsigned long timeo = jiffies + HZ; >> + >> + while (time_before(jiffies, timeo)) { >> + if (stfsm_is_idle(fsm)) >> + return; >> + >> + cond_resched(); >> + } >> + >> + dev_err(fsm->dev, "timeout on sequence completion\n"); > > I believe the timeout logic is incorrect. What if we wait a "long time" > to call stfsm_wait_seq() (due to scheduling, or otherwise)? Then the > while loop might not even run once (time_before(x, y) is false). Or what > if cond_resched() waits for a long time... > > So you need an extra check of stfsm_is_idle() after the while loop, > before you declare a timeout. Yes, good catch, this needs to updated. Cheers, Angus