Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:54:05 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer_push | From | Jiri Slaby <> |
| |
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
| |