On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:18:20 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:27:42PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:29:53 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > >
> > > > > - if (timeout < 0) {
> > > > > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> > > > > - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> > > > > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> > > > > - status = timeout;
> > > > > - }
> > > > > -
> > > > No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
> > >
> > > Looking at the patch context, such code comes later.
> > But it causes regressions; without looking at the "later" code, we can't afford merging
> > this code now.
>
> Later as in "a few lines later" not "some time later". Or am I missing
> something else?
I was too fast in reading emails after my short vacation...Sorry.
Acked-by: srinidhi kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
regards/srinidhi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
