On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:18:19PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > + *
> > + * Returns: 0 on success, a negative error code on failure
Probably not even worth adding this comment. It's assumed.
> > */
> > static inline int
> > remote_event_wait(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct remote_event *event)
> > {
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > if (!event->fired) {
> > event->armed = 1;
> > dsb(sy);
> > - if (wait_event_interruptible(*wq, event->fired)) {
> > + ret = wait_event_interruptible(*wq, event->fired);
> > + if (ret) {
> > event->armed = 0;
> > - return 0;
> > + return ret;
> > }
> > event->armed = 0;
> > /* Ensure that the peer sees that we are not waiting (armed == 0). */
> > @@ -518,7 +523,7 @@ remote_event_wait(wait_queue_head_t *wq, struct remote_event *event)
> > }
> >
> > event->fired = 0;
> > - return 1;
> > + return ret;
> in general this patch looks good to me. But maybe we better return 0
> directly and reduce the scope of ret.
Heh. If I could have found some more things to complain about then I
was going to ask that this be changed to "return 0;" as well. But I
always feel like "ret" should be function scope. Otherwise you can get
multiple ret declarations in a function and it leads to not setting the
correct error code.
regards,
dan carpenter
