Re: [RFC 13/19] staging: qlge: rewrite do while loop as for loop in qlge_sem_spinlock

[Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 07:33 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while
> > > > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY.
> > []
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> > []
> > I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading
> > as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay
> > 
> > $ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY
> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100
> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c:               udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c:               udelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c:                mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c:                mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY);
> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c:                mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */
> 
> Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for
> mdelay?

I think the define is pointless and it'd be more readable
to just use 100 in all the cases.

IMO: There really aren't enough cases to justify using defines.