On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 04:16:38PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 03:54:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > 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. Yes, that'd help with clarity in terms of the interface - the completion API is a bit non-standard here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
