[PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

[PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

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@osadl.org>
---

Checking the call-sites of ath10k_wmi_wait_for_unified_ready and 
ath10k_wmi_wait_for_service_ready the positive return value (remaining
time in jiffies) is never passed up the call-chain nor used so it is 
cleaner to treat this like a boolean success/fail only (actually the two
functions should probably be of type bool - but that does not seem to be
common practice in the ath10k code base)

Patch was only compile tested with x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=m,
CONFIG_ATH10K=m

Patch is against 4.0-rc3 (localversion-next is -next-20150312)
:
 drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c |   20 ++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
index c7ea77e..a1cdcba 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c
@@ -884,20 +884,24 @@ void ath10k_wmi_put_wmi_channel(struct wmi_channel *ch,
 
 int ath10k_wmi_wait_for_service_ready(struct ath10k *ar)
 {
-	int ret;
+	unsigned long time_left;
 
-	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->wmi.service_ready,
-					  WMI_SERVICE_READY_TIMEOUT_HZ);
-	return ret;
+	time_left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->wmi.service_ready,
+						WMI_SERVICE_READY_TIMEOUT_HZ);
+	if(!time_left)
+		return 0;
+	return 1;
 }
 
 int ath10k_wmi_wait_for_unified_ready(struct ath10k *ar)
 {
-	int ret;
+	unsigned long time_left;
 
-	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->wmi.unified_ready,
-					  WMI_UNIFIED_READY_TIMEOUT_HZ);
-	return ret;
+	time_left = wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->wmi.unified_ready,
+						WMI_UNIFIED_READY_TIMEOUT_HZ);
+	if(!time_left)
+		return 0;
+	return 1;
 }
 
 struct sk_buff *ath10k_wmi_alloc_skb(struct ath10k *ar, u32 len)
-- 
1.7.10.4

Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

[Michal Kazior]

On 12 March 2015 at 16:49, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> 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@osadl.org>
> ---
>
> Checking the call-sites of ath10k_wmi_wait_for_unified_ready and
> ath10k_wmi_wait_for_service_ready the positive return value (remaining
> time in jiffies) is never passed up the call-chain nor used so it is
> cleaner to treat this like a boolean success/fail only (actually the two
> functions should probably be of type bool - but that does not seem to be
> common practice in the ath10k code base)

It'd make sense to have these functions return 0 or -ETIMEDOUT. In
that case both call sites would need to be adjusted to treat "< 0" or
"!x" as an error (instead of the current "<= 0") condition and not set
-ETIMEDOUT themselves.


Michał

Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Michal Kazior wrote:

> On 12 March 2015 at 16:49, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> > 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@osadl.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Checking the call-sites of ath10k_wmi_wait_for_unified_ready and
> > ath10k_wmi_wait_for_service_ready the positive return value (remaining
> > time in jiffies) is never passed up the call-chain nor used so it is
> > cleaner to treat this like a boolean success/fail only (actually the two
> > functions should probably be of type bool - but that does not seem to be
> > common practice in the ath10k code base)
> 
> It'd make sense to have these functions return 0 or -ETIMEDOUT. In
> that case both call sites would need to be adjusted to treat "< 0" or
> "!x" as an error (instead of the current "<= 0") condition and not set
> -ETIMEDOUT themselves.
>
looking at the call sites in ath10k_core_start more or less 
all other initialization calls will treate 0 as success and
!=0 as failure so this is the cleaner solution. as its all
now

status = call()
if(status)
 	error

patch just posted.

thx!
hofrat

Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

[Kalle Valo]

Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.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@osadl.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

Re: [PATCH 2/3 RFC] ath10k: wmi: match wait_for_completion_timeout return type

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Kalle Valo wrote:

> Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.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@osadl.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.
>
ok - was simply unsure about the proposed change 
and 1 was a trivial cleanup (which should have been 
sent out as a seperate patch and not part of a series - my mistake)

Will fix this up and repost it.

sorry for the screwup - no intent to wast anybodies time.

thx!
hofrat