Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu writes:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:17:44 +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire said:
So the wait_event_timeout condition here ends up being (empty || skip) but what is the point of puting this code into the parameter list of wait_event_timeout() ?
Would it not be equivalent to:
bool empty; ...
spin_lock_bh(&ar->htt.tx_lock); empty = (ar->htt.num_pending_tx == 0); spin_unlock_bh(&ar->htt.tx_lock);
skip = (ar->state == ATH10K_STATE_WEDGED) || test_bit(ATH10K_FLAG_CRASH_FLUSH, &ar->dev_flags);
ret = wait_event_timeout(ar->htt.empty_tx_wq, (empty || skip), ATH10K_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_HZ);
What am I missing here ?
Umm... a Signed-off-by: and formatting it as an actual patch? :)
Seriously - you're right, it's ugly code that needs fixing...
Huh? The condition needs to be re-evaluated every time the process wakes up. Evaluating it once and then reusing that result is not the same. Something elseis supposed to modify ar->htt.num_pending_tx, ar->state or ar->dev_flags while we are waiting. Bjørn