On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:58:21PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 05:27:25AM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > wait_for_completion_timeout() returns unsigned long (0 on timeout or > > remaining jiffies) not int. > > > > Yeah, but it's fine though because 10000 / 256 fits into int without a > problem. > > I'm not sure this sort of patch is worth it when it's just a style > debate instead of a bugfix. I'm a little bit torn about this. In > Smatch, I run into this issue one in a while where Smatch doesn't know > if the timeout is less than int. Right now I hacked the DB to say that > these functions always return < INT_MAX. > > Anyway, for sure the commit message should say that it's just a cleanup > and not a bugfix. > I know its not a functional bug its "only" an API violation - the problem is more that code is often cut&past and at some point it may be a problem or someoe expects a negative return value without that this evef can occure. But yes - the commit message should have stated that this non-conformance in this case has no effect - will resend. thx! hofrat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
