On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:09:38PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 11:03:20PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 02:16:11PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote: > > > > > > From: Alexander Usyskin <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Enable non-blocking receive for drivers on mei bus, this allows > > > > > > checking for data availability by mei client drivers. This is > > > > > > most effective for fixed address clients, that lacks flow control. > > > > > > > > > > > > This function adds new API function mei_cldev_recv_nonblock(), > > > > > > it retuns -EGAIN if function will block. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Usyskin <[email protected]> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <[email protected]> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > V2: use _nonblock() function suffix instead of NONBLOCK flag > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/misc/mei/bus-fixup.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > > drivers/misc/mei/bus.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > > > drivers/misc/mei/mei_dev.h | 7 ++++++- > > > > > > include/linux/mei_cl_bus.h | 6 ++++-- > > > > > > 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/mei/bus-fixup.c > > > > > > b/drivers/misc/mei/bus-fixup.c index 7f2cef9011ae..18e05ca7584f > > > > > > 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/misc/mei/bus-fixup.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/mei/bus-fixup.c > > > > > > @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static int mei_osver(struct mei_cl_device > > *cldev) > > > > > > if (ret < 0) > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > > > > > - ret = __mei_cl_recv(cldev->cl, buf, length); > > > > > > + ret = __mei_cl_recv(cldev->cl, buf, length, 0); > > > > > > > > > > What is 0 here? Again, mode... > > > > > > > > Yes, it means no change in behavior, but this is an internal function. > > > > So, it makes no sense, are you not going to have to read this code again in > > 10 > > years? New developers? Make the code make sense please. > > > Sorry Greg, the code does make sense to me, the whole kernel passes nonblock > around as flag starting from the syscall (O_NONBLOCK) > it doesn't make sense to write two functions that differ in one 'if' > statement. > I understand that you are in some crusade against flags, but you are not > proposing a concrete solution and I don't have one either. > I can solve it in the external wrapper, but internally it's just a same > function.
What is wrong with your email client that it doesn't wrap things properly? Anyway, I don't remember anymore, please resend and I will review it then. greg k-h
