[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210109022815.GA3324@minyard.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:28:15 -0600
From: Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To: Asmaa Mnebhi <asmaa@...dia.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ipmi_msghandler.c question
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:37:04PM +0000, Asmaa Mnebhi wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> I have a question for you related to the following function in ipmi_msghandler.c
>
> static void __get_guid(struct ipmi_smi *intf)
> {
> int rv;
> struct bmc_device *bmc = intf->bmc;
>
> bmc->dyn_guid_set = 2;
> intf->null_user_handler = guid_handler;
> rv = send_guid_cmd(intf, 0);
> if (rv)
> /* Send failed, no GUID available. */
> bmc->dyn_guid_set = 0;
> else
> wait_event(intf->waitq, bmc->dyn_guid_set != 2);
>
> /* dyn_guid_set makes the guid data available. */
> smp_rmb();
>
> intf->null_user_handler = NULL;
> }
>
> Why is wait_event used as opposed to wait_event_timeout? In the context where the dyn_guid_set value doesn't change from 2, this would run forever. Wouldn't we want to timeout after a certain amount of time?
>
The low-level IPMI driver is guarateed to return a response to a
message, though if something goes wrong with the BMC it can take a few
seconds to return the failure message. So it shouldn't be an issue.
-corey
> Thanks.
> Asmaa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists