Re: [PATCH] ali5451: fix timeout handling in snd_ali_{codecs,timer}_ready()

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:09:50 +0200,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] ali5451: fix timeout handling in snd_ali_{codecs,timer}_ready()
> 
> Modify loops in such way that the register value is checked also after
> the timeout condition, just in case the heavy interrupt load etc. caused
> the thread to sleep for the time period exceeding the timeout value.
> 
> While at it remove an extra ALI_STIMER read from snd_ali_stimer_ready().
> 
> Reported-by: Jack Byer <ojbyer@usa.net>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> ---
>  sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c |   11 ++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: b/sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c
> +++ b/sound/pci/ali5451/ali5451.c
> @@ -314,8 +314,11 @@ static int snd_ali_codec_ready(struct sn
>  		res = snd_ali_5451_peek(codec,port);
>  		if (!(res & 0x8000))
>  			return 0;
> +		if (!time_after_eq(end_time, jiffies))
> +			break;
>  		schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
> -	} while (time_after_eq(end_time, jiffies));
> +	} while (1);

Using for (;;) is more generic.  I see your patch keeps the changes
minimal, but I'm afraid that the result, do {} while(1), can be
misleading.

Could you replace with for (;;) ?


thanks,

Takashi