Hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:27 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-07-24 13:11:59)
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting adding a timeout. I was just saying that if
> > claim_tcs_for_req() were to ever return an error code other than
> > -EBUSY that we'd need a check for it because otherwise we'd interpret
> > the result as a tcs_id.
> >
>
> Ok that sounds like you don't want a check for -EBUSY so I'll leave this
> as >= 0.
To clarify, I'd be OK with either of these (slight preference towards
#2, but not a strong one):
1. Your current code and a REALLY OBVIOUS comment in
claim_tcs_for_req() saying that we'd better not return any error codes
other than -EBUSY (because we'll just blindly retry on all of them).
- or -
2. Handling error codes other than -EBUSY, like this:
wait_event_lock_irq(drv->tcs_wait,
(tcs_id = claim_tcs_for_req(drv, tcs, msg)) != -EBUSY,
drv->lock);
if (tcs_id < 0)
goto unlock;
-Doug
