From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com [209.85.167.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84B3629CA for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2021 14:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id bp20so41905439lfb.6 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2021 06:45:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4gNUjzA8KlzMe1Lw4SKhbvOeuiCO4MLYSKvzBpEL6Sg=; b=L6fR2gBs9jHO/gefGZ/281PAeZYPb1Sgd+KmUxmfzRxaqtg8lrnPW57r+zWO96VwoI 99gtepb4QRuHF6DhYIW1bNBImz+8Je/6kmKKaNsPL6YqaCL7N0Ar9Kbcn+RTH2ppJdcl 3UiqkU/pxgYjYTniTJ3016w+Uf4tc8eSKkSURDnCEWDe8I9D5iKmKVII8uiARDxXyyMD qoo4gVRr8uXzC2XpOE+qzk5oUNJ8RoTjkZEst6hbJqJmk9nWBfp6+6JP6k8Jya8l9Y2b 1s3pTS8hFrCH1HwD5OtKc9hE1myErrZq8r1eemPDXyUtyNuAst/ICGiKvSzOstnmzghP hbkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4gNUjzA8KlzMe1Lw4SKhbvOeuiCO4MLYSKvzBpEL6Sg=; b=dWPEz8nz9vOb32DfKBQvi3YGgufON48HButxeNLiRDK6ChGD1b/zVfKBq6tB9KNnbv uW0aeq0A/FGBMQNoxK4fX66OyC9OxVse3dM76NaVrXMX/Re+X/O/Sr4ujPqw+JCjQXMH vbhiLu686Q9JkBPn0nk5CS05LR6Qn31IPRuI7DXyhqx0lSuUrGOl8/ZaDNGoXFryolxW PgsRy2muwSVTsO/ErTcii590JX0TW/E4/X3c/3fHxvVlfiFc0zXIcX0C36V4htu5kyI0 njbSo3pN1XhEGNort+DlCCBXUfaVIEDmkVWoNqbp3J63L3iLK6+bSwmW9qfu6FsLyT4f df3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531S3/o9GccJRtUB7smYHn3A8NMC8LcKBpLjIfkg73BTfI/5AUDd gQB+tT6NXmqCHtpacE7gLOOf6oDBz1w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTIBFAWdxt7+I+ecuDAMewI/NEam/OCMIRzzwYrw/g6gJI92z5m2xCA/TiKVh+Gj9qVRo/Tg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:110a:: with SMTP id l10mr18760690lfg.527.1640702711569; Tue, 28 Dec 2021 06:45:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] ([94.103.235.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm1865474ljq.102.2021.12.28.06.45.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Dec 2021 06:45:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8e4cd620-282a-8a1f-27c7-94f05a7e0f4f@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 17:45:09 +0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] qlge: refactor qlge_change_rx_buffers() in qlge_main.c Content-Language: en-US To: Adam Kandur , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev References: <20211228135756.7343-1-sys.arch.adam@gmail.com> From: Pavel Skripkin In-Reply-To: <20211228135756.7343-1-sys.arch.adam@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Adam! Looks like you have missed all maintainers in your CC list :) Please, use ./script/get_mainainer.pl to get list of people who are responsible for reviewing your code On 12/28/21 16:57, Adam Kandur wrote: > Greetings. As I understand, qlge_change_rx_buffers() waits 4 times for > an outstanding reset to complete. And if it cannot, reports about > timeout. I assume this can be written using for loop instead of while, > wich looks nicer for me. Hope my guess was right. > Commit message should only explain why you do this change. You can leave your unrelated thoughts/questions below ---, since this part won't be visible in gitlog > Signed-off-by: Adam Kandur > --- <--- here > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 15 ++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > index 9873bb2a9ee4..f36e43a85038 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > @@ -4012,19 +4012,16 @@ static int qlge_change_rx_buffers(struct qlge_adapter *qdev) > > /* Wait for an outstanding reset to complete. */ > if (!test_bit(QL_ADAPTER_UP, &qdev->flags)) { Aren't there 5 checks actually? It seems unlikely that this bit will be set after 3-4 instructions > - int i = 4; > - > - while (--i && !test_bit(QL_ADAPTER_UP, &qdev->flags)) { > + for (int i = 4; !test_bit(QL_ADAPTER_UP, &qdev->flags); i--) { Have you compiled this patch? Compiler should have warn you about mixed declaration and code. With regards, Pavel Skripkin