| Message ID | 20210621134902.83587-14-coiby.xu@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Improve the qlge driver based on drivers/staging/qlge/TODO | expand |
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. > > Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > index c5e161595b1f..2d2405be38f5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > @@ -140,12 +140,13 @@ static int qlge_sem_trylock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) > int qlge_sem_spinlock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) > { > unsigned int wait_count = 30; > + int count; > > - do { > + for (count = 0; count < wait_count; count++) { > if (!qlge_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask)) > return 0; > - udelay(100); > - } while (--wait_count); > + udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); This is an interesting way to silence the checkpatch udelay warning. ;) regards, dan carpenter
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while >> loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. >> >> Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 7 ++++--- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c >> index c5e161595b1f..2d2405be38f5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c >> @@ -140,12 +140,13 @@ static int qlge_sem_trylock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) >> int qlge_sem_spinlock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) >> { >> unsigned int wait_count = 30; >> + int count; >> >> - do { >> + for (count = 0; count < wait_count; count++) { >> if (!qlge_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask)) >> return 0; >> - udelay(100); >> - } while (--wait_count); >> + udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); > >This is an interesting way to silence the checkpatch udelay warning. ;) I didn't know this could silence the warning :) > >regards, >dan carpenter > -- Best regards, Coiby
On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while > > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. [] > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c [] > > > @@ -140,12 +140,13 @@ static int qlge_sem_trylock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) > > > int qlge_sem_spinlock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) > > > { > > > unsigned int wait_count = 30; > > > + int count; > > > > > > - do { > > > + for (count = 0; count < wait_count; count++) { > > > if (!qlge_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask)) > > > return 0; > > > - udelay(100); > > > - } while (--wait_count); > > > + udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); > > > > This is an interesting way to silence the checkpatch udelay warning. ;) > > I didn't know this could silence the warning :) It also seems odd to have unsigned int wait_count and int count. Maybe just use 30 in the loop without using wait_count at all. I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay $ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100 drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while >> > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. >[] >> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c >[] >> > > @@ -140,12 +140,13 @@ static int qlge_sem_trylock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) >> > > int qlge_sem_spinlock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) >> > > { >> > > unsigned int wait_count = 30; >> > > + int count; >> > > >> > > - do { >> > > + for (count = 0; count < wait_count; count++) { >> > > if (!qlge_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask)) >> > > return 0; >> > > - udelay(100); >> > > - } while (--wait_count); >> > > + udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > >> > This is an interesting way to silence the checkpatch udelay warning. ;) >> >> I didn't know this could silence the warning :) > >It also seems odd to have unsigned int wait_count and int count. > >Maybe just use 30 in the loop without using wait_count at all. Thanks for the suggestion. I will apply it to v1. > >I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading >as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay > >$ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY >drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100 >drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */ Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for mdelay? > > -- Best regards, Coiby
On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 07:33 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: > > > > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while > > > > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. > > [] > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c > > [] > > I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading > > as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay > > > > $ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY > > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100 > > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); > > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); > > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); > > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); > > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */ > > Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for > mdelay? I think the define is pointless and it'd be more readable to just use 100 in all the cases. IMO: There really aren't enough cases to justify using defines.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 09:35:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 07:33 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:58:06AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 19:22 +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote: >> > > > > Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while >> > > > > loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. >> > [] >> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c >> > [] >> > I also think using UDELAY_DELAY is silly and essentially misleading >> > as it's also used as an argument value for mdelay >> > >> > $ git grep -w UDELAY_DELAY >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge.h:#define UDELAY_DELAY 100 >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c: udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); >> > drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_mpi.c: mdelay(UDELAY_DELAY); /* 100ms */ >> >> Thanks for spotting this issue! How about "#define MDELAY_DELAY 100" for >> mdelay? > >I think the define is pointless and it'd be more readable >to just use 100 in all the cases. > >IMO: There really aren't enough cases to justify using defines. I thought magic number should be avoided if possible. This case is new to me. Thanks for the explanation! > > -- Best regards, Coiby
diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c index c5e161595b1f..2d2405be38f5 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c @@ -140,12 +140,13 @@ static int qlge_sem_trylock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) int qlge_sem_spinlock(struct qlge_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask) { unsigned int wait_count = 30; + int count; - do { + for (count = 0; count < wait_count; count++) { if (!qlge_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask)) return 0; - udelay(100); - } while (--wait_count); + udelay(UDELAY_DELAY); + } return -ETIMEDOUT; }
Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY. Signed-off-by: Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)