Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:14681 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751845AbbCMQU1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:20:27 -0400 From: Kalle Valo To: Nicholas Mc Guire CC: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type References: <1426175362-8640-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:20:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1426175362-8640-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> (Nicholas Mc Guire's message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:49:22 -0400") Message-ID: <87bnjwrhse.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20150313_172101_164951_51F2B0E4) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nicholas Mc Guire writes: > Return type of wait_for_completion_timeout is unsigned long not int. > An appropriately named unsigned long is added and the assignments fixed up. > Rather than returning 0 (timeout) or a more or less random remaining time > (completion success) this return 0 or 1 which also resolves the type of the > functions being int. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire Why does patch 2 in this patchset have RFC in the title but patches 1 and 3 not? That just makes me confused, I can't tell what you want me to do with the patches. Normally I just drop all patches (or patchsets) which have RFC, and that's what I'm going to do now. To save everyone's time, when submitting something please state clearly what's your intention. -- Kalle Valo