[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a7bd86ff-4dad-229b-bca7-063096824aed@monom.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:26:55 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] firmware: encapsulate firmware loading status
Hi Ming,
On 09/08/2016 01:26 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org> wrote:
>> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
>> +static int fw_status_wait_timeout(struct fw_status *fw_st, long timeout)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&fw_st->completion,
>> + timeout);
>> + if (ret == 0 && test_bit(FW_STATUS_ABORTED, &fw_st->status))
>> + return -ENOENT;
>
> I guess the check should have been OR instead of AND, right?
Good catch. It should be
if (ret != 0 && test_bit(...))
return -ENOENT;
in case where we abort the operation instead of timing out.
cheers,
daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists