[...]
> From: Chuansheng Liu <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:18 PM
> Subject: [PATCH 1/7] I2c-nomadik: Fix the usage of wait_for_completion_timeout
> To: [email protected], [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected],
> [email protected], [email protected]
>
>
>
> The return value of wait_for_completion_timeout() is always
> >= 0 with unsigned int type.
>
> So the condition "ret < 0" or "ret >= 0" is pointless.
>
> Signed-off-by: liu chuansheng <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c | 14 --------------
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c
> index 02c3115..8b2ffcf 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-nomadik.c
> @@ -435,13 +435,6 @@ static int read_i2c(struct nmk_i2c_dev *dev, u16 flags)
> timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout(
> &dev->xfer_complete, dev->adap.timeout);
>
> - if (timeout < 0) {
> - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> - status = timeout;
> - }
> -
No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
It is used further in nmk_i2c_xfer_one. You could perhaps use
if (timeout == 0) {
...and the rest of the code as is
}
regards/srinidhi
> > - if (timeout < 0) {
> > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> > - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> > - status = timeout;
> > - }
> > -
> No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
Looking at the patch context, such code comes later.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:29:53 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > - if (timeout < 0) {
> > > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> > > - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> > > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> > > - status = timeout;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
>
> Looking at the patch context, such code comes later.
But it causes regressions; without looking at the "later" code, we can't afford merging
this code now.
regards/srinidhi
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:27:42PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:29:53 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > > - if (timeout < 0) {
> > > > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> > > > - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> > > > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> > > > - status = timeout;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
> >
> > Looking at the patch context, such code comes later.
> But it causes regressions; without looking at the "later" code, we can't afford merging
> this code now.
Later as in "a few lines later" not "some time later". Or am I missing
something else?
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:18:20 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:27:42PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:29:53 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > >
> > > > > - if (timeout < 0) {
> > > > > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> > > > > - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> > > > > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> > > > > - status = timeout;
> > > > > - }
> > > > > -
> > > > No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
> > >
> > > Looking at the patch context, such code comes later.
> > But it causes regressions; without looking at the "later" code, we can't afford merging
> > this code now.
>
> Later as in "a few lines later" not "some time later". Or am I missing
> something else?
I was too fast in reading emails after my short vacation...Sorry.
Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar <[email protected]>
regards/srinidhi