From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Mc Guire Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] wimax/i2400m: fixup completion handling for resetting a device Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 08:47:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20150320074705.GB21852@opentech.at> References: <1426585774-24204-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> <55096FA1.9030908@cogentembedded.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire , Inaky Perez-Gonzalez , linux-wimax@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Sergei Shtylyov Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55096FA1.9030908@cogentembedded.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 3/17/2015 12:49 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >> wait_for_completion_timeout return 0 (timeout) or >=1 (completion) so the check >> for > 0 in the else branch is always true and can be dropped. The comment seems >> misleading as it is always going to pass the result up. > >> The sync of the completion access with __i2400m_dev_reset_handle (which checks >> for if (i2400m->reset_ctx) could race if i2400m_reset() returns negative so >> the resetting of i2400m->reset_ctx == NULL is moved to the out: path. > >> As wait_for_completion_timeout returns unsigned long not int, an appropriately >> named variable of type unsigned long is added and assignments fixed up. > > Don't try to do several things in one patch. > normaly yes - this was marked as RFC and if I had split it up into 3 patches it would be hard to see how it fits together without actually applying them. The intent was to get feedback notably on moving i2400m->reset_ctx == NULL and if dropping the (I think missleading) comment about negative return is ok Should this be in seperate patches even as RFC ? Once that is clarified it will go out as 3 patchs. thx! hofrat