Re: [RFC 13/19] staging: qlge: rewrite do while loop as for loop in qlge_sem_spinlock

Coiby Xu
2021-06-30T23:35:38Z

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while
>> > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY.
>[]
>> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
>[]
>> > > @@ -140,12 +140,13 @@ static int qlge_sem_trylock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask)
>> > >  int qlge_sem_spinlock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask)
>> > >  {
>> > >   unsigned int wait_count = 30;
>> > > + int count;
>> > >
>> > > - do {
>> > > + for (count = 0; count < wait_count; count++) {
>> > >   if (!qlge_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask))
>> > >   return 0;
>> > > - udelay(100);
>> > > - } while (--wait_count);
>> > > + udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>> >
>> > This is an interesting way to silence the checkpatch udelay warning. ;)
>>
>> I didn't know this could silence the warning :)
>
>It also seems odd to have unsigned int wait_count and int count.
>
>Maybe just use 30 in the loop without using wait_count at all.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will apply it to v1.
>
>I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading
>as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay
>
>$ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY
>drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100
>drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
>drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */

Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for
mdelay?

>
>

--
Best regards,
Coiby