From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FA4C4361B for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09672376F for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727773AbgLGQNa (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:13:30 -0500 Received: from m43-15.mailgun.net ([69.72.43.15]:19826 "EHLO m43-15.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727176AbgLGQNa (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:13:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1607357593; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Date: References: Subject: Cc: To: From: Sender; bh=KBadcv3HX0ZnNLrZaWWM+MlOQr/0v7i1c6cDBo5uKaI=; b=v47P1qWs5M/8cHFRbak/NK1xHCcbONHwBJezSvH1p8z1YOVGz42PA9mGvZDfLM162RnDtLUB FZN2eGq9ATk3aYMvkDWBSpGR/WEfsQLn6AgzMWG/k28qJh+fx4Nvs3XqrYEvLGM5IqA2nC+c FIMx147QBAACIcV3fKyH9wgJGhI= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.43.15 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyI0MWYwYSIsICJsaW51eC1rZXJuZWxAdmdlci5rZXJuZWwub3JnIiwgImJlOWU0YSJd Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n09.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 5fce547af06acf11ab122160 (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:12:42 GMT Sender: kvalo=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 999A1C433CA; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from potku.adurom.net (88-114-240-156.elisa-laajakaista.fi [88.114.240.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kvalo) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7D05C433C6; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 16:12:39 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org E7D05C433C6 Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kvalo@codeaurora.org From: Kalle Valo To: Brian Norris Cc: Youghandhar Chintala , kuabhs@chromium.org, linux-wireless , Linux Kernel , ath10k , Doug Anderson , Rakesh Pillai Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ath10k: skip the wait for completion to recovery in shutdown path References: <20201126171553.2097-1-youghand@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 18:12:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Brian Norris's message of "Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:35:44 -0800") Message-ID: <87y2i9egsp.fsf@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Brian Norris writes: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 9:16 AM Youghandhar Chintala > wrote: >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/snoc.c >> @@ -1790,9 +1790,6 @@ static int ath10k_snoc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> >> reinit_completion(&ar->driver_recovery); >> >> - if (test_bit(ATH10K_SNOC_FLAG_RECOVERY, &ar_snoc->flags)) >> - wait_for_completion_timeout(&ar->driver_recovery, 3 * HZ); > > Hmm, this is the only instance of waiting for this completion, which > means that after this patch, 'ar->driver_recovery' is doing exactly > nothing. Should you instead just remove it completely? > > Also, if your patch is correct, it seems like the completion was never > needed in the first place. You should probably address such a claim in > the commit message; is there truly no need to wait here? Or was there > some purpose here, but that purpose was accomplished some other way? > Or was there a purpose, and that purpose was misguided? It feels to me > like it is indeed correct to remove this (shutdown should be performed > promptly; we don't need to delay it just to try to "finish > recovering"), but it's your job to convince the reader. Exactly what I was thinking as well. To me this patch was just looks racy and all the commit log says that it's "unwanted delay". -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches