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:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:20:36AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:

quoted

Since wait_count=30 > 0, the for loop is equivalent to do while
loop. This commit also replaces 100 with UDELAY_DELAY.

[]

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c

[]

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -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