Re: [PATCH] ib_srpt: wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negativ status

[Bart Van Assche]

On 01/16/15 12:20, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
> 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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/