Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:13:30 +0100 | From | Arend van Spriel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] i2c: iproc: Add Broadcom iProc I2C Driver |
| |
On 01/18/15 12:56, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 01/18/15 12:17, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>> Hello Wolfram, >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:14:04AM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>>>>> On 01/17/15 00:42, Ray Jui wrote: >>>>>>> + complete_all(&iproc_i2c->done); >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking over this code it seems to me there is always a single >>>>>> process waiting for iproc_i2c->done to complete. So using complete() >>>>>> here would suffice. >>>>> Yeah, there is always only a single thread waiting. That means both >>>>> complete and complete_all are suitable. AFAIK there is no reason to pick >>>>> one over the other in this case. >>>> >>>> Clarity? >>> And which do you consider more clear? complete_all might result in the >>> question: "Is there>1 waiter?" and complete might yield to "What about >>> the other waiters?". If you already know there is only one, both are on >>> par on clarity. Might only be me?! I don't care much. >> >> Maybe it is me, but it is not about questions but it is about >> implicit statements that the code makes (or reader derives from it). >> When using complete_all you indicate to the reader "there can be >> more than one waiter". When using complete it indicates "there is >> only one waiter". If those statements are not true that is a code > No, complete works just fine in the presence of>1 waiter. It just wakes > a single waiter and all others continue to wait.
Yes. Agree.
> That is, for single-waiter situations there is no semantic difference > between complete and complete_all. But there is a difference for > multi-waiter queues.
Indeed.
> I think this is just a matter of your POV in the single-waiter > situation: complete might be intuitive because you just completed a > single task and complete_all might be intuitive because it signals > "I'm completely done, there is noone waiting for me any more.".
Ok. Let's leave it to the author's intuition or to say it differently "sorry for the noise" ;-)
Regards, Arend
> Best regards > Uwe >
| |