On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:46:07AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:02:15PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:08:45PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:19:22AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > This loop ends on -1 so the error message will never be printed.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 4bcf59a5dea0 ("serial: 8250: 8250_omap: Account for data in flight during DMA teardown")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > poll_count--)
> > > > cpu_relax();
> > > >
> > > > - if (!poll_count)
> > > > + if (poll_count == -1)
> > >
> > > Why not to change poll_count-- to --poll_count?
> > >
> >
> > Either one is fine. I considered several different ways and wrote the
> > patch twice. The downside of --poll_count is that it's an off by one
> > in that the author clearly intended to loop 25 times. It doesn't really
> > matter if we only loop 24 but off by ones are aesthetically unpleasant.
>
> I didn't get. If you use --poll_count you get exactly 25 times and moreover,
> you may convert variable to unsigned type.
It seems I missed in the first message to mention that it is in association
with using do {} while (); model, which is more clear for wait loops.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
