netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion

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:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:20:01 +0200
From:	Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
To:	Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org> writes:

> Return type of wait_for_completion_timeout is unsigned long not int.
> An appropriately named unsigned long is added and the assignments fixed up.
> Rather than returning 0 (timeout) or a more or less random remaining time
> (completion success) this return 0 or 1 which also resolves the type of the
> functions being int.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>

Why does patch 2 in this patchset have RFC in the title but patches 1
and 3 not? That just makes me confused, I can't tell what you want me to
do with the patches. Normally I just drop all patches (or patchsets)
which have RFC, and that's what I'm going to do now.

To save everyone's time, when submitting something please state clearly
what's your intention.

-- 
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html