Hello Wolfram, On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote: > > > >+ complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done); > > > > > > Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single > > > process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete() > > > here would suffice. > > Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both > > complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to pick > > one over the other in this case. > > Clarity? And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in the question: "Is there >1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What about the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are on par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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
