The function comments in qplib_rcfw.c mention -ETIMEOUT as a
possible return value. However, the correct errno is -ETIMEDOUT.

Update the comments to reflect the proper return value to avoid
confusion for developers and users referring to the code.

Signed-off-by: Alok Tiwari <alok.a.tiwari@oracle.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c
index 5e34395472c5..295a9610f3e6 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/bnxt_re/qplib_rcfw.c
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static int __wait_for_resp(struct bnxt_qplib_rcfw *rcfw, u16 cookie)
  * wait for command completion. Maximum holding interval is 8 second.
  *
  * Returns:
- * -ETIMEOUT if command is not completed in specific time interval.
+ * -ETIMEDOUT if command is not completed in specific time interval.
  * 0 if command is completed by firmware.
  */
 static int __block_for_resp(struct bnxt_qplib_rcfw *rcfw, u16 cookie)
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ static int __send_message(struct bnxt_qplib_rcfw *rcfw,
  * This function can not be called from non-sleepable context.
  *
  * Returns:
- * -ETIMEOUT if command is not completed in specific time interval.
+ * -ETIMEDOUT if command is not completed in specific time interval.
  * 0 if command is completed by firmware.
  */
 static int __poll_for_resp(struct bnxt_qplib_rcfw *rcfw, u16 cookie)
-- 
2.50.1

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 01:18:48 -0700, Alok Tiwari wrote:
> The function comments in qplib_rcfw.c mention -ETIMEOUT as a
> possible return value. However, the correct errno is -ETIMEDOUT.
> 
> Update the comments to reflect the proper return value to avoid
> confusion for developers and users referring to the code.
> 
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] RDMA/bnxt_re: Fix incorrect errno used in function comments
      https://git.kernel.org/rdma/rdma/c/9b9e32f75aa3d2

Best regards,
-- 
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>