lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ib_srpt: wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negativ status
On 01/16/15 12:20, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>
> ---
>
> Patch is against 3.19.0-rc3 -next-20150109
>
> Patch was compiletested only with x86_64_defconfig +
> CONFIG_TARGET_CORE=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND=m, CONFIG_INFINIBAND_SRPT=m
>
> drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> index eb694dd..4e58c76 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srpt/ib_srpt.c
> @@ -3533,7 +3533,7 @@ static void srpt_close_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
> spin_unlock_irq(&sdev->spinlock);
>
> res = wait_for_completion_timeout(&release_done, 60 * HZ);
> - WARN_ON(res <= 0);
> + WARN_ON(res == 0);
> }
>
> /**

The description of this patch explains why you would like to change this
code but not why this change is useful. Does building the current code
e.g. trigger a compiler warning ? If so, which warning ? If not, why
would you like to change this code and why do you think this change is
an improvement ?

Bart.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-16 13:21    [W:0.500 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site