On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 06:12:23PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:37:48PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> (Watching the unit test run fall into an infinite loop..) Nope, the
> >> >> break is in the switch scope, the while loop needs the 'goto out'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes this bit definitely needs to be refactored :)
> >> >
> >> > How about this patch instead? Untested.
> >>
> >> I'm not a fan of the looping with gotos.
> >
> > Me either... But... the logic here is not the same.
>
> How about this one, then? Again, compile-tested only. I'll run it
> through testing only if you like it better than your approach. If you
> like your appraoch better, I'll go ahead and review and test that.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> diff --git a/ndctl/dimm.c b/ndctl/dimm.c
> index b1b84c2..63d4d4a 100644
> --- a/ndctl/dimm.c
> +++ b/ndctl/dimm.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,52 @@ out:
> return rc;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Wait for a command to complete, up to the firmware-specified timeout.
> + * Returns -errno on error. On success, which means either the command
> + * completed (sucessfully or with an error), or we timed out waiting for
> + * it, return 0. The caller needs to check the status on its own if this
> + * function returns 0.
> + */
> +static int query_fw_finish_status_timeout(struct ndctl_cmd *cmd,
> + struct fw_info *fw)
> +{
> + enum ND_FW_STATUS status;
> + struct timespec sleeptime, start, now;
> + int rc;
> +
> + rc = clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &start);
> + if (rc < 0)
> + return rc;
> +
> + sleeptime.tv_nsec = fw->query_interval / 1000;
> + sleeptime.tv_sec = 0;
> +
> + while ((rc = ndctl_cmd_submit(cmd)) == 0 &&
This needs to check for >= 0 because ndctl_cmd_submit() can return a positive
value on success. See do_cmd()
> + (status = ndctl_cmd_fw_xlat_firmware_status(cmd)) == FW_EBUSY) {
Why not return this status rather than having to query for it again?
While I'm not a fan of the goto either I think it does actually work ok.
Why don't we go with that patch for now and if you want to pull the "again"
loop into a separate function which fixes the signal handling of nanosleep we
can do that as a follow on.
But I think we need to fix the above and just return the status from this
loop...
Something like:
static int query_fw_finish_status_timeout(struct ndctl_cmd *cmd,
struct fw_info *fw,
enum ND_FW_STATUS *status)
{
...
}
[snip]
> - status = ndctl_cmd_fw_xlat_firmware_status(cmd);
> - switch (status) {
> - case FW_SUCCESS:
> - ver = ndctl_cmd_fw_fquery_get_fw_rev(cmd);
> - if (ver == 0) {
> - fprintf(stderr, "No firmware updated.\n");
> - rc = -ENXIO;
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
> - printf("Image updated successfully to DIMM %s.\n",
> - ndctl_dimm_get_devname(dimm));
> - printf("Firmware version %#lx.\n", ver);
> - printf("Cold reboot to activate.\n");
[snip]
> }
> - } while (true);
>
> -out:
> + printf("Image updated successfully to DIMM %s.\n",
> + ndctl_dimm_get_devname(dimm));
> + printf("Firmware version %#lx.\n", ver);
> + printf("Cold reboot to activate.\n");
Final NIT I changed these to fprintf() as well.
Ira
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-le...@lists.01.org
