On 20/01/15 07:23, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > if(!wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(...)) > only handles the timeout case - this patch adds handling the > signal case the same as timeout and cleans up. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx> > --- > > Only the timeout case was being handled, return of 0 in > wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout, the signal case (-ERESTARTSYS) > was treated just like the case of successful completion, which is most > likely not reasonable. > > Note that exynos_mipi_dsi_wr_data/exynos_mipi_dsi_rd_data return values > are not checked at the call sites in s6e8ax0.c (cmd_read/cmd_write)! > > This patch simply treats the signal case the same way as the timeout case, > by releasing locks and returning 0 - which might not be the right thing to > do - this needs a review by someone knowing the details of this driver. While I agree that this patch is a bit better than the current state, the code still looks wrong as Russell said. I can merge this, but I'd rather have someone from Samsung look at the code and change it to use wait_for_completion_killable_timeout() if that's what this code is really supposed to use. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
