On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:54:03PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 09:21:50PM +0200, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout return 0 on timeout and > > -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted. The check for > > !wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout() would report an interrupt > > as timeout. Further, while HZ/50 will work most of the time it could > > Wouldn't it interpret -ERESTARTSYS as *no timeout*? > yup - actually the current code just treats the -ERESTARTSYS case as success. > Anyway, the plain !0 comparison for me clearly shows that > 'interruptible' was more copy&pasted then really planned or supported. > If it was, it would need to cancel something. Also, 20ms is pretty hard > to cancel for a user ;) Given all that and the troubles we had with > 'interruptible' in the I2C subsystem, I'd much vote for dropping > interruptible here. > > > fail for HZ < 50, so this is switched to msecs_to_jiffies(20). > > Rest looks good, thanks! > thx! hofrat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
