On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:54:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:46:26PM +0000, Maciej Strozek wrote: > > W dniu 20/11/2023 o 14:40, Mark Brown pisze: > > > > > + } else { > > > > + return 0; > > > > + } > > > > Is it a bug to call this function without to_poll set to something > > > known? This will just silently ignore it which seems wrong and is > > > inconsitent with the handling in the interrupt case which will wait for > > > the the completion to be signalled and report a timeout on error. > > > In interrupt case 0 means timeout (and calling function should expect 0 as > > error/timeout), so the only inconsistency I see is in not waiting before > > returning a timeout, but that would be needlessly wasting time? > > Do you think adding a debug print or a comment would help here? > > It seems like a clear code bug if this is ever called with an unknown > completion, I'd expect a WARN_ON_ONCE() there. The lack of a delay is > potentially going to affect how any error handling works which doesn't > feel ideal though the users look fine right now. I guess perhaps another option might be to not stick so strictly to the wait_for_completion_timeout API. This function could return an -EINVAL here and a -ETIMEDOUT for a timeout then the callers could be updated accordingly. Thanks, Charles