Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-18 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-18 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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

RE: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread linux-kernel-dev
>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.

RE: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread linux-kernel-dev
>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: >>>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread 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 > >>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread 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 =

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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: >>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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); >>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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) { >> >>> +

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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 ==

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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) { > >>>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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); >>>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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); >>>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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 >>

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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

Re: [PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Luis R. Rodriguez
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

[PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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,

[PATCHv2] firmware: Correct handling of fw_state_wait_timeout() return value

2017-01-17 Thread Jakub Kicinski
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,