[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121115101820.GC418@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:18:20 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
To: Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>
Cc: "chuansheng.liu@...el.com" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 1/7] I2c-nomadik: Fix the usage of
wait_for_completion_timeout
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:27:42PM +0530, Srinidhi Kasagar wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:29:53 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > > - if (timeout < 0) {
> > > > - dev_err(&dev->adev->dev,
> > > > - "wait_for_completion_timeout "
> > > > - "returned %d waiting for event\n", timeout);
> > > > - status = timeout;
> > > > - }
> > > > -
> > > No, it is wrong. You need to update the status variable in the case of timeout.
> >
> > Looking at the patch context, such code comes later.
> But it causes regressions; without looking at the "later" code, we can't afford merging
> this code now.
Later as in "a few lines later" not "some time later". Or am I missing
something else?
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists