On Mon, 23 April 2012 18:13:58 -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > > I have gone through the rest of this series of patches (10 of > them posted 12 April) and they look fine. The above line worries > me and I raised it with the author but have received no response. > > A small test program suggests that the second argument to > wait_event_interruptible [a condition] will always be true > due to the trailing comma operator (i.e. the ", 1"). I suspect > another set of parentheses is needed: > res = wait_event_interruptible(sdp->o_excl_wait, > ((!list_empty(&sdp->sfds) || get_exclude(sdp)) ? > 0 : (set_exclude(sdp, 1), 1))); You are right. I made set_exclude() return the new value, which simplifies this condition a bit. Any simplification here is a good thing, as I just proved that it is too complicated for my brain to fully understand. Thanks for spotting this, Doug! Jörn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
