On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:17:59PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Wolfram, > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > > On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote: > > > > >+ complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done); > > > > > > > > Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single > > > > process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete() > > > > here would suffice. > > > Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both > > > complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to pick > > > one over the other in this case. > > > > Clarity? > And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in the > question: "Is there >1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What about > the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are on > par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much. It is minor, I agree: If I read complete_all, I assume there is something fishy if there is only one waiter. It doesn't match. It might work, but I'll wonder if this is accidently or intentionally.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
