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 S1758166AbcIHM1A (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:27:00 -0400
Received: from atlantic540.startdedicated.de ([188.138.9.77]:54748 "EHLO
        atlantic540.startdedicated.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751260AbcIHM07 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:26:59 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] firmware: encapsulate firmware loading status
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
References: <1473237908-20989-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
 <1473237908-20989-3-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
 <CACVXFVNhxh7jaQ0QzDjHnZPKJpW8gPmXEzhnVwfeH8wobX8NRA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
From: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
Message-ID: <a7bd86ff-4dad-229b-bca7-063096824aed@monom.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:26:55 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVNhxh7jaQ0QzDjHnZPKJpW8gPmXEzhnVwfeH8wobX8NRA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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;

in case where we abort the operation instead of timing out.

cheers,
daniel