On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 06:33:56AM +, linux-kernel-dev wrote:
> >From: Jakub Kicinski [mailto:jakub.kicin...@netronome.com]
> >Sent: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 22:18
> >
> >On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 06:33:56AM +, linux-kernel-dev wrote:
> >From: Jakub Kicinski [mailto:jakub.kicin...@netronome.com]
> >Sent: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 22:18
> >
> >On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub
>From: Jakub Kicinski [mailto:jakub.kicin...@netronome.com]
>Sent: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 22:18
>
>On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R.
>From: Jakub Kicinski [mailto:jakub.kicin...@netronome.com]
>Sent: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 22:18
>
>On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> retval =
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:20AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> >> Adding a NULL-check would just
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(>fw_st, timeout);
>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(>fw_st, timeout);
>> >>> - if (retval < 0) {
>> >>> +
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>
> >>> retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(>fw_st, timeout);
> >>> - if (retval < 0) {
> >>> + if (retval == -ETIMEDOUT || retval ==
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:30:37AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >>>
> >>> retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(>fw_st, timeout);
> >>> - if (retval < 0) {
> >>> + if (retval == -ETIMEDOUT || retval == -ERESTARTSYS) {
> >>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(>fw_st, timeout);
>>> - if (retval < 0) {
>>> + if (retval == -ETIMEDOUT || retval == -ERESTARTSYS) {
>>> mutex_lock(_lock);
>>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>
>>> retval = fw_state_wait_timeout(>fw_st, timeout);
>>> - if (retval < 0) {
>>> + if (retval == -ETIMEDOUT || retval == -ERESTARTSYS) {
>>> mutex_lock(_lock);
>>> fw_load_abort(fw_priv);
>>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:35:05PM +, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
>> return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
>>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:35:05PM +, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
>> return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
>> fw_state_wait_timeout() means
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:35:05PM +, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
> return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
> fw_state_wait_timeout() means FW load has to be aborted. This is
> incorrect, FW load only has
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 03:35:05PM +, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
> return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
> fw_state_wait_timeout() means FW load has to be aborted. This is
> incorrect, FW load only has
Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
fw_state_wait_timeout() means FW load has to be aborted. This is
incorrect, FW load only has to be aborted when load timed out or
has been interrupted. Otherwise,
Commit 5d47ec02c37e ("firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait()
return value") made the assumption that any error returned from
fw_state_wait_timeout() means FW load has to be aborted. This is
incorrect, FW load only has to be aborted when load timed out or
has been interrupted. Otherwise,
20 matches
Mail list logo