lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer_push
From
Friendly ping Johan, Greg: any opinions on the tty_schedule_flip vs 
tty_flip_buffer_push case -- which one should I keep?

I would like to move forward with these as I have a lot kernel-doc
writings pending and depending on this patch (be it "drop
tty_flip_buffer_push" or "drop tty_schedule_flip").

Thanks.

On 22. 09. 21, 8:57, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 16. 09. 21, 12:03, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:14:15AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> Since commit a9c3f68f3cd8d (tty: Fix low_latency BUG) in 2014,
>>> tty_flip_buffer_push() is only a wrapper to tty_schedule_flip(). All
>>> users were converted, so remove tty_flip_buffer_push() completely.
>>
>> Did you consider inlining tty_flip_buffer_push() or unexporting
>> tty_schedule_flip() instead?
>
> Yes -- I see no reason for two functions doing the very same thing. It's
> only confusing.
>
>> The name tty_flip_buffer_push() is arguable more descriptive since the
>> work may already be running and is also less tied to the implementation.
>>
>> The ratio of drivers using tty_flip_buffer_push() over
>> tty_schedule_flip() is also something like 186 to 15 so that would
>> amount to a lot less churn too.
>
> OK, I can do either way. I chose this path as tty_schedule_flip was a
> wrapper to tty_flip_buffer_push. In any case, I wouldn't take the number
> of changed drivers as a measure. But if it makes more sense for people
> regarding the naming, I will "flip" the two flips.



--
js
suse labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-18 08:54    [W:0.121 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site