Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Jon Smirl
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > Geoff Thorpe wrote: > >> rc = spin_event_timeout((ret = in_be32(x) & 0x14), ...); > > It's an interesting idea, but I have two problems with it: > > 1) This approach is that it depends on the internals of the macro.  That is, > you're sneaking

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Timur Tabi
Geoff Thorpe wrote: > rc = spin_event_timeout((ret = in_be32(x) & 0x14), ...); It's an interesting idea, but I have two problems with it: 1) This approach is that it depends on the internals of the macro. That is, you're sneaking in an assignment in the hopes that the code will behave properl

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Geoff Thorpe
Timur Tabi wrote: > Geoff Thorpe wrote: > >> So from this user's perspective (FWIW), it would come as a surprise if >> the return value reflected the evaluated expression rather than what >> happened w.r.t. the spin/timeout. > > It shouldn't come as a surprise because I've thoroughly documented t

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Timur Tabi
Jon Smirl wrote: > Then if I don't care about the result (which I think is the common case)... > > rc = spin_event_timeout(in_be32(x) & 0x14, ...); > if (rc) >timeout_happened; That's another way of doing it, but I'm already at version 9 of my patch, and I'm not inclined to make any changes

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Jon Smirl
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > Geoff Thorpe wrote: > >> So from this user's perspective (FWIW), it would come as a surprise if >> the return value reflected the evaluated expression rather than what >> happened w.r.t. the spin/timeout. > > It shouldn't come as a surprise beca

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Timur Tabi
Geoff Thorpe wrote: > So from this user's perspective (FWIW), it would come as a surprise if > the return value reflected the evaluated expression rather than what > happened w.r.t. the spin/timeout. It shouldn't come as a surprise because I've thoroughly documented the behavior. I also think r

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Jon Smirl
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Geoff Thorpe wrote: > Timur Tabi wrote: >> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: >> >>> I just tried using this. The !rc has the effect of making the error >>> return be zero instead the normal not zero. >> >> You're confused.  It's not a "return cod

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-26 Thread Geoff Thorpe
Timur Tabi wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > >> I just tried using this. The !rc has the effect of making the error >> return be zero instead the normal not zero. > > You're confused. It's not a "return code", it's a return value. I > guess I should have called the

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-25 Thread Timur Tabi
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > I just tried using this. The !rc has the effect of making the error > return be zero instead the normal not zero. You're confused. It's not a "return code", it's a return value. I guess I should have called the parameter "ret" instead of "rc

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v8] powerpc: introduce macro spin_event_timeout()

2009-05-25 Thread Jon Smirl
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > The macro spin_event_timeout() takes a condition and timeout value > (in microseconds) as parameters.  It spins until either the condition is true > or the timeout expires.  It returns the result of the condition when the loop > was terminated.