On 1/18/2015 4:13 AM, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 01/18/15 12:56, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>> On 01/18/15 12:17, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Maybe it is me, but it is not about questions but it is about >>> implicit statements that the code makes (or reader derives from it). >>> When using complete_all you indicate to the reader "there can be >>> more than one waiter". When using complete it indicates "there is >>> only one waiter". If those statements are not true that is a code >> No, complete works just fine in the presence of>1 waiter. It just wakes >> a single waiter and all others continue to wait. > > Yes. Agree. > >> That is, for single-waiter situations there is no semantic difference >> between complete and complete_all. But there is a difference for >> multi-waiter queues. > > Indeed. > >> I think this is just a matter of your POV in the single-waiter >> situation: complete might be intuitive because you just completed a >> single task and complete_all might be intuitive because it signals >> "I'm completely done, there is noone waiting for me any more.". > > Ok. Let's leave it to the author's intuition or to say it differently > "sorry for the noise" ;-) Will stay with complete_all since I meant to say "after this transfer complete interrupt, there should be no one waiting anymore (although there's currently only one waiter, and will likely stay that way)" Thanks! > > Regards, > Arend > >> Best regards >> Uwe >> > -- 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
