On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:40PM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > On 09/05/2012 12:20 PM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:49:22AM +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote: > >>+ ret = wait_event_timeout(wl->tx_flush_wq, > >>+ brcms_tx_flush_completed(wl), > >>+ msecs_to_jiffies(BRCMS_FLUSH_TIMEOUT)); > >>+ > >>+ ieee80211_wake_queues(hw); > >>+ WARN_ON(!ret); > >Any particular reason why this WARN_ON is after ieee80211_wake_queues() ? > > > > The wait has a timeout so the warning indicates flush did not > complete as in the old implementation. Maybe a WARN_ON_ONCE() would > be better, but I have not observed the warning yet. Yeah, but I rather asked why it is _after_ ieee80211_wake_queues(), not before, just after wait_event_timeout(). Not big deal thought, just if something wrong will happen in ieee80211_wake_queues() order of error prints will be confusing. Stanislaw -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
