From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S941201AbcIHPtS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:49:18 -0400
Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:46829 "EHLO
        youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932283AbcIHPtR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:49:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a7bd86ff-4dad-229b-bca7-063096824aed@monom.org>
References: <1473237908-20989-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
 <1473237908-20989-3-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <CACVXFVNhxh7jaQ0QzDjHnZPKJpW8gPmXEzhnVwfeH8wobX8NRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a7bd86ff-4dad-229b-bca7-063096824aed@monom.org>
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 23:49:13 +0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACVXFVPS1_kSdFyc2XnBxW5uk34SP-=BHLRHBHSLK+z78jdkdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPS1_kSdFyc2XnBxW5uk34SP-=BHLRHBHSLK+z78jdkdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] firmware: encapsulate firmware loading status
To: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org> wrote:
> Hi Ming,
>
> On 09/08/2016 01:26 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-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;

Another question, why do you want to return -ENOENT when
userspace aborts the load? And looks it will always be override as
-EAGAIN.

>
> in case where we abort the operation instead of timing out.
>
> cheers,
> daniel