On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:50:43 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:35:19PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > while testing next-20140226 I got an issue with the function
> > wait_event_timeout. When this function timed out instead of returning
> > 0, it returned the value of the timeout passed in parameter. I found
> > that reverting "sched/wait: Suppress Sparse 'variable shadowing'
> > warning" fixed this regression.
> >
> > I got this issue in the driver drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mv64xxx.c.
>
> Ah indeed. We actually rely on the shadowing for ___wait_cond_timeout().
>
> We further used the __ret variable in __wait_event_timeout()'s cmd
> argument: __ret = schedule_timeout(__ret). That now explicitly uses the
> wrong __ret.
>
> Yeah, we need to pull that patch.
Is there anything we can do to make all this clearer? Simply using a
distinctive variable name ("__wait_var__"?) in place of __ret (and
documenting it) would help a lot.
Some __ret's are long and some are int. Maybe that's a glitch, maybe
it's because some __ret's are used for inter-macro communications and
some are not, which just makes things worse.
I started to do a patch, got all confused and gave up. We've made
quite a tangly mess in there, alas.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
