On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 03/20/2015 10:47 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > Sorry for late reply, I'm pretty busy these days.
no hurry on this - this is cleanup work only > >>>> wait_for_completion_timeout return 0 (timeout) or >=1 (completion) so the >>>> check >>>> for > 0 in the else branch is always true and can be dropped. The comment >>>> seems >>>> misleading as it is always going to pass the result up. > >>>> The sync of the completion access with __i2400m_dev_reset_handle (which >>>> checks >>>> for if (i2400m->reset_ctx) could race if i2400m_reset() returns >>>> negative so >>>> the resetting of i2400m->reset_ctx == NULL is moved to the out: path. > >>>> As wait_for_completion_timeout returns unsigned long not int, an >>>> appropriately >>>> named variable of type unsigned long is added and assignments fixed up. > >>> Don't try to do several things in one patch. > >> normaly yes - this was marked as RFC and if I had split it up into >> 3 patches it would be hard to see how it fits together without >> actually applying them. > > You could summarize your intent in the cover letter (PATCH #0). > ok - in that case I will repost as you suggested - just thought it is more readable to keep it in one patch for resolving the open questions. >> The intent was to get feedback notably on moving i2400m->reset_ctx == NULL >> and if dropping the (I think missleading) comment about negative return is ok > >> Should this be in seperate patches even as RFC ? > > I think the RFC patches should still conform to all the usual patch > rules. How would we understand whether you intent to split the patch up > later, if you didn't even write about it anywhere? > I had assumed that a RFC is not intended to be applied anywhere buyt only for review - will clean it up and put the relevant patched code snippet in #0 then for review. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
