Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-3959-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:56:13 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] crypto: use 'time_left' instead of 'timeout' with
 wait_for_*() functions
Message-ID: <20240430165613.GA1110@sol.localdomain>
References: <20240430121443.30652-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240430121443.30652-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:14:41PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> [PATCH 0/1] crypto: use 'time_left' instead of 'timeout' with wait_for_*() functions

1-patch series should not have a cover letter.  Just include the details in the
patch itself.

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

I would understand it to be the remaining timeout, so I'm not sure the existing
name is really that bad.  But I agree that time_left is clearer.

- Eric