On 08/12/2016 02:12 AM, Johan Hedberg wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016, Bart Van Assche wrote:
wait_on_bit_timeout() returns one of the following three values:
* 0 to indicate success.
* -EINTR to indicate that a signal has been received;
* -EAGAIN to indicate timeout;
Make the wait_on_bit_timeout() callers check for these values.
This patch has not yet been tested.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/bluetooth/btusb.c | 5 ++---
drivers/bluetooth/hci_intel.c | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Good catch. It seems the API was changed not to return 1 by this commit
(which failed to update any users of of it):
commit 68985633bccb6066bf1803e316fbc6c1f5b796d6
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Dec 1 14:04:04 2015 +0100
sched/wait: Fix signal handling in bit wait helpers
Do you have some doubts about your fix? You put "RFC" in the subject
which usually means the author isn't completely sure about it.
Hello Johan,
The reason I put "RFC" in the subject is because I wouldn't like this
patch to be accepted upstream without having been tested first.
Mentioning "RFC" makes people think twice before applying a patch.
That's the only reason.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
