linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ib_srpt: wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negativ status

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54B8FCAE.2020408@sandisk.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:57:34 +0100
From:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
CC:	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	"Jingoo Han" <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Rasmus Villemoes" <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
	<linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ib_srpt: wait_for_completion_timeout does not return
 negativ status

On 01/16/15 12:20, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
> ---
> 
> Patch is against 3.19.0-rc3 -next-20150109
> 
> Patch was compiletested only with x86_64_defconfig +
> CONFIG_TARGET_CORE=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND_SRPT=m
> 
>  drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> index eb694dd..4e58c76 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> @@ -3533,7 +3533,7 @@ static void srpt_close_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&sdev->spinlock);
>  
>  	res = wait_for_completion_timeout(&release_done, 60 * HZ);
> -	WARN_ON(res <= 0);
> +	WARN_ON(res == 0);
>  }
>  
>  /**

The description of this patch explains why you would like to change this
code but not why this change is useful. Does building the current code
e.g. trigger a compiler warning ? If so, which warning ? If not, why
would you like to change this code and why do you think this change is
an improvement ?

Bart.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/