Re: [PATCH 0/4] ath10k: a few incorrect return handling fix-up

Sergei Shtylyov
2014-12-30T18:39:21Z

On 12/30/2014 09:28 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:

>>> wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negative values so the tests
>>> for <= 0 are not needed and the case differentiation in the error handling
>>> path unnecessary.

>> I decided to verify your statement and I saw that it seems wrong.
>> do_wait_for_common() can return -ERESTARTSYS and the return value gets
>> returned by its callers unchanged.

> the -ERESTARTSYS only can be returned if state matches but
> wait_for_completion_timemout passes TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> so signal_pending_state will return 0 and never negativ

> my understanding of the callchain is:
> wait_for_completion_timemout with TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> -> wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> -> __wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> -> do_wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> -> signal_pending_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE...)

> static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> if (!(state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_WAKEKILL)))
> return 0;

Right. I didn't look into TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE thing before sending my mail.

> so wait_for_completion_timemout should return 0 or 1 only

0 or the remaining time, to be precise.

>>> patch was only compile tested x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=m
>>> CONFIG_ATH10K=m

>>> patch is against linux-next 3.19.0-rc1 -next-20141226

>> Rather patches. It would have been better to send one patch instead of
>> 4 patches with the same name.

> sorry for that - I had split it into separate patches as it was
> in different files - giving them the same name of course was a bit
> brain-dead.

You should have mentioned the modified files in the subject. But IMHO it
would be better to have just one patch.

> please do give it one more look - if the above argument is invalid
> I apologize for the noise.

It's me who should apologize. :-<

> thx!
> hofrat

WBR, Sergei