Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM Youghandhar Chintala > <youghand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c >> @@ -1790,9 +1790,6 @@ static int ath10k_snoc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> reinit_completion(&ar->driver_recovery); >> >> - if (test_bit(ATH10K_SNOC_FLAG_RECOVERY, &ar_snoc->flags)) >> - wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->driver_recovery, 3 * HZ); > > Hmm, this is the only instance of waiting for this completion, which > means that after this patch, 'ar->driver_recovery' is doing exactly > nothing. Should you instead just remove it completely? > > Also, if your patch is correct, it seems like the completion was never > needed in the first place. You should probably address such a claim in > the commit message; is there truly no need to wait here? Or was there > some purpose here, but that purpose was accomplished some other way? > Or was there a purpose, and that purpose was misguided? It feels to me > like it is indeed correct to remove this (shutdown should be performed > promptly; we don't need to delay it just to try to "finish > recovering"), but it's your job to convince the reader. Exactly what I was thinking as well. To me this patch was just looks racy and all the commit log says that it's "unwanted delay". -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
