From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netxen: only half timeout waited
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:41:35 +0000
Message-ID: <20090217074135.GB4677@ff.dom.local>
References: <4999704A.9030004@gmail.com> <20090217073312.GA4677@ff.dom.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dhananjay@netxen.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f167.google.com ([209.85.218.167]:56028 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f167.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751228AbZBQHll (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:41:41 -0500
Received: by bwz11 with SMTP id 11so1843607bwz.13
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090217073312.GA4677@ff.dom.local>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:33:12AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 16-02-2009 14:55, Roel Kluin wrote:
> > Only half the timeout was waited, due to the double increment, and an error
> > occurred one too early.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_niu.c b/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_niu.c
> > index c3b9c83..df3aa08 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_niu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic_niu.c
> > @@ -147,12 +147,11 @@ int netxen_niu_gbe_phy_read(struct netxen_adapter *adapter, long reg,
> >  					  NETXEN_NIU_GB_MII_MGMT_INDICATE(0),
> >  					  &status, 4))
> >  			return -EIO;
> > -		timeout++;
> >  	} while ((netxen_get_gb_mii_mgmt_busy(status)
> >  		  || netxen_get_gb_mii_mgmt_notvalid(status))
> >  		 && (timeout++ < NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX));
> >  
> > -	if (timeout < NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX) {
> > +	if (timeout <= NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX) {
> 
> Roel, very good caches, but IMHO in all such cases changing to
> ++timeout with 'if (timeout == NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX)' where

Hmm... of course 'if (timeout == NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX)' for errcode;
in this particular case: 'if (timeout < NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX)' would
be OK.

Jarek P.


> possible, should be really more readable. At least wrt. next similar
> patches.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jarek P.
> 
> >  		if (adapter->hw_read_wx(adapter,
> >  					  NETXEN_NIU_GB_MII_MGMT_STATUS(0),
> >  					  readval, 4))
> > @@ -240,11 +239,10 @@ int netxen_niu_gbe_phy_write(struct netxen_adapter *adapter, long reg,
> >  					  NETXEN_NIU_GB_MII_MGMT_INDICATE(0),
> >  					  &status, 4))
> >  			return -EIO;
> > -		timeout++;
> >  	} while ((netxen_get_gb_mii_mgmt_busy(status))
> >  		 && (timeout++ < NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX));
> >  
> > -	if (timeout < NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX)
> > +	if (timeout <= NETXEN_NIU_PHY_WAITMAX)
> >  		result = 0;
> >  	else
> >  		result = -EIO;