Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-201897-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 09:43:59 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Richard
 Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mtd: use 'time_left' instead of 'timeout' with
 wait_*() functions
Message-ID: <20240605094359.53a6d8ca@xps-13>
In-Reply-To: <20240604212919.5038-4-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
References: <20240604212919.5038-4-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Organization: Bootlin
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Wolfram,

wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com wrote on Tue,  4 Jun 2024 23:29:19
+0200:

> There is a confusing pattern in the kernel to use a variable named 'timeo=
ut' to
> store the result of wait_*() functions causing patterns like:
>=20
>         timeout =3D wait_for_completion_timeout(...)
>         if (!timeout) return -ETIMEDOUT;
>=20
> with all kinds of permutations. Use 'time_left' as a variable to make the=
 code
> obvious and self explaining.

Good idea. The waiting functions are generally confusing because the
semantics of the return values are different, so this is a good first
step, I'll take them through mtd-next soon.

Thanks,
Miqu=C3=A8l