[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zelrtyr4kv75cfrt2ije3ifjdmaqy25zm4sa774w7v5sa5soy2@qvufjqml47m3>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:15:14 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, brcm80211@...ts.linux.dev, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] wifi: brcmfmac: use 'time_left' variable with
wait_event_timeout()
> I feel this type of changes fall into the category of bike-shedding. People
I have two motivations for this change: One may be bike-shedding, yet
"if (!timeout) return -ETIMEDOUT" looks stupid to me.
> should know how wait_event_timeout() works and then a variable name does not
> really matter.
And for a new developer, I am quite sure the change will help to
understand how wait_event-family() works. Especially given that
wait_event_interruptible() returns 0 if condition is true and
wait_event_interruptible_timeout() returns 0 if condition is false.
> > Fix to the proper variable type 'long' while here.
>
> But it may have useful side-effects to go over the code with fresh look.
:)
> Acked-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists