diff options
author | Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> | 2016-03-05 02:19:23 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> | 2016-03-07 22:51:11 +0100 |
commit | 9ebfdf5b18493f338237ef9861a555c2f79b0c17 (patch) | |
tree | 0e1c2041a5cad1919cca33f3153de9e932bec986 /fs | |
parent | mtd: bcm63xxpart: give width specifier an 'int', not 'size_t' (diff) | |
download | linux-9ebfdf5b18493f338237ef9861a555c2f79b0c17.tar.xz linux-9ebfdf5b18493f338237ef9861a555c2f79b0c17.zip |
mtd: nand: check status before reporting timeout
In commit b70af9bef49b ("mtd: nand: increase ready wait timeout and
report timeouts"), we increased the likelihood of scheduling during
nand_wait(). This makes us more likely to hit the time_before(...)
condition, since a lot of time may pass before we get scheduled again.
Now, the loop was already buggy, since we don't check if the NAND is
ready after exiting the loop; we simply print out a timeout warning. Fix
this by doing a final status check before printing a timeout message.
This isn't actually a critical bug, since the only effect is a false
warning print. But too many prints never hurt anyone, did they? :)
Side note: perhaps I'm not smart enough, but I'm not sure what the best
policy is for this kind of loop; do we busy loop (i.e., no
cond_resched()) to keep the lowest I/O latency (it's not great if the
resched is delaying Richard's system ~400ms)? Or do we allow
rescheduling, to play nice with the rest of the system (since some
operations can take quite a while)?
Reported-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Reviewed-by: Harvey Hunt <harvey.hunt@imgtec.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions