Am 15.12.2015 14:46, schrieb Manish Chopra: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dept_hsg_linux_nic_dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:dept_hsg_linux_nic_dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >> Of Dan Carpenter >> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 3:46 PM >> To: Dept-GE Linux NIC Dev <Dept-GELinuxNICDev@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rajesh >> Borundia <rajesh.borundia@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: [patch] qlcnic: fix a timeout loop >> >> The problem here is that at the end of the loop we test for if >> idc->vnic_wait_limit is zero, but since idc->vnic_wait_limit-- is a >> post-op, it actually ends up set to (u8)-1. I have fixed this by changing it to a >> pre-op. I had to change the starting value from >> "QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO" (30) to "QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO >> + 1" so that we still loop the same number of times as before. >> >> Fixes: 486a5bc77a4a ('qlcnic: Add support for 83xx suspend and resume.') >> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_83xx_vnic.c >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_83xx_vnic.c >> index be7d7a6..9919245 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_83xx_vnic.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_83xx_vnic.c >> @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ int qlcnic_83xx_config_vnic_opmode(struct >> qlcnic_adapter *adapter) >> } >> >> ahw->idc.vnic_state = QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_NON_OPER; >> - ahw->idc.vnic_wait_limit = QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO; >> + ahw->idc.vnic_wait_limit = QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO + 1; >> >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ int qlcnic_83xx_check_vnic_state(struct qlcnic_adapter >> *adapter) >> u32 state; >> >> state = QLCRDX(ahw, QLC_83XX_VNIC_STATE); >> - while (state != QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER && idc->vnic_wait_limit--) { >> + while (state != QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER && --idc->vnic_wait_limit) { >> msleep(1000); >> state = QLCRDX(ahw, QLC_83XX_VNIC_STATE); >> } > > Hi Dan, > It looks bit odd incrementing 1 in QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO. Can't we just post increment inside the loop ? > > ahw->idc.vnic_wait_limit = QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO; > while (state != QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER && idc->vnic_wait_limit) { > idc->vnic_wait_limit--; > -----; > -----; > } > > Thanks, > Manish Hi Manish, i would like to ask an other question. Why do you choose this way ? Basicly you have a #define QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO idc->vnic_wait_limit=QLCNIC_DEV_NPAR_OPER_TIMEO; while ( ... --idc->vnic_wait_limit) Do you need the time it took to chance the state ? Look at Dan patches, there is a whole list that shows that programmers are terrible at counting backwarts. Maybe it is possible to change the code into something like while ( cnt++ < idc->vnic_wait_limit) this way you have a flexible limit, and it is better to understand for others what you want to archive. just my 2 cents, re, wh > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
