Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:42:42 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Gary R Hook <ghook@amd.com>
Cc:     "Hook, Gary" <Gary.Hook@amd.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: dmatest: timeout value of -1 should specify
 infinite wait
Message-ID: <20190613111242.GE9160@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
References: <155933183362.4916.15727271006977576552.stgit@sosrh3.amd.com>
 <20190604122356.GY15118@vkoul-mobl>
 <010db7bb-dee2-4ba8-a085-4154735b98db@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <010db7bb-dee2-4ba8-a085-4154735b98db@amd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04-06-19, 16:47, Gary R Hook wrote:

> Well, I was uncomfortable with documentation that didn't match behavior.

That is the right way :)
> 
> I see two choices (and I just chose one to start a conversation):
> 
> 1) Accept this patch, with an infinite timeout, or
> 2) Leave the data type alone, but change the description to state that 
> timeout values up to hex 0xFFFFFFFF / decimal 4294967295 can be used, 
> emulating an "infinite" wait. A very long wait that eventually pops a 
> timer is probably preferable. I don't think there are any conversion 
> issues since the jiffy parameter to wait_event_freezable_timeout() is 
> converted to a long. I could be wrong about that.
> 
> I'm happy to go with option (2). Please suggest a course of action.

That looks sensible to me as well

Thanks

-- 
~Vinod