linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver

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]

Date:	Sun, 18 Jan 2015 12:17:59 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:	Arend van Spriel <arend@...adcom.com>, Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver

Hello Wolfram,

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > > On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote:
> > > >+	complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done);
> > > 
> > > Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single
> > > process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete()
> > > here would suffice.
> > Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both
> > complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to pick
> > one over the other in this case.
> 
> Clarity?
And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in the
question: "Is there >1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What about
the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are on
par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/