From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755670AbcHWX5w (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:57:52 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60847 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755617AbcHWX5v (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:57:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:57:50 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Daniel Wagner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Wagner , Ming Lei , "Luis R . Rodriguez" , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware_class: Use swait instead of completion Message-ID: <20160823235750.GN3296@wotan.suse.de> References: <1471942820-23767-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <1471942820-23767-3-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1471942820-23767-3-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:00:20AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > From: Daniel Wagner > > complete_all() can only be issued once before it needs to be > reinitialized. What are the chances this ever happened? If it could not happen its worth explaining why. > To ensure we never call complete_all() twice we use > swait and make the code here a bit more robust. The real benefit here though is not that is it? Isn't the benefit that we don't need all the API functionality provided by wait, we just need something light weight. Thanks for splitting this up, it makes it for a much easier review. Luis