On 03/26, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
> +int __sched
> +wait_for_completion_timeout_state(struct completion *x,
> + unsigned long timeout, int state)
> +{
> + long t;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!timeout)
> + timeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT;
> +
> + switch (state) {
> + default:
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + /* fall through */
> + case 0:
> + state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> + break;
Well, this looks strange, imho. If the caller wants TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
it should simply pass TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
wait_for_completion_timeout_state(state => 0) looks confusing, and this
is not symmetrical wrt other states.
> + t = wait_for_common(x, timeout, state);
> + if (likely(t > 0)) {
> + ret = 0;
> + } else {
> + if (t < 0)
> + ret = t;
> + else
> + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> + }
> + return ret;
I tend to agree with Peter. This is the common helper, probably it
will have more users. We shouldn't throw out the positive return
value, it can be useful.
call_usermodehelper_exec() can simply do
retval = wait_for_common(...);
if (retval > 0)
retval = sub_info->retval;
else if (!retval)
retval = -ETIMEDOUT;
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
