On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:17:44 +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire said: > > > So the wait_event_timeout condition here ends up being (empty || skip) > > but what is the point of puting this code into the parameter list of > > wait_event_timeout() ? > > > > Would it not be equivalent to: > > > > bool empty; > > ... > > > > spin_lock_bh(&ar->htt.tx_lock); > > empty = (ar->htt.num_pending_tx == 0); > > spin_unlock_bh(&ar->htt.tx_lock); > > > > skip = (ar->state == ATH10K_STATE_WEDGED) || > > test_bit(ATH10K_FLAG_CRASH_FLUSH, > > &ar->dev_flags); > > > > ret = wait_event_timeout(ar->htt.empty_tx_wq, (empty || skip), > > ATH10K_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_HZ); > > > > What am I missing here ? > > Umm... a Signed-off-by: and formatting it as an actual patch? :) > > Seriously - you're right, it's ugly code that needs fixing... thats what I thought too but it seemed to be intentional so I was just confused if it were some strange side-effect that I had not understood. thanks for the clarification ! hofrat _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
