On 25. 03. 20, 14:15, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>> + if (copied != len)
>>> + dev_dbg(&rpdev->dev, "trunc buffer: available space is %d\n",
>>> + copied);
>>> + tty_flip_buffer_push(&cport->port);
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* control message */
>>> + struct rpmsg_tty_ctrl *msg = data;
>>> +
>>> + if (len != sizeof(*msg))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + cport->data_dst = msg->d_ept_addr;
>>> +
>>> + /* Update remote cts state */
>>> + cport->cts = msg->cts ? 1 : 0;
>>
>> Number to bool implicit conversion needs no magic, just do:
>> cport->cts = msg->cts;
>
> In this case i would prefer cport->cts = (msg->cts != 1);
> for the conversion
That still looks confusing. In the ternary operator above, you used
msg->cts as a bool implicitly and now you are trying to artificially
create one :)?
IOW in a bool context, "msg->cts ? 1 : 0" is the same as "msg->cts".
>>> + /*
>>> + * Try to send the message to remote processor, if failed return 0 as
>>> + * no data sent
>>> + */
>>> + ret = rpmsg_trysendto(cport->d_ept, tmpbuf, msg_size, cport->data_dst);
>>
>> data of rpmsg_trysendto is not const. OK, you seem you need to change
>> that first, I see no blocker for that.
>
> I created a temporary buffer to ensure that buffer to sent does not exceed the
> MTU size.
> But perhaps this is an useless protection as the rpmsg_tty_write_room already
> return the MTU value, and so the 'len' variable can not be higher that value
> returned by the write_room?
You still can limit it by msg_size without cloning the buffer, right?
>>> +static int rpmsg_tty_port_activate(struct tty_port *p, struct tty_struct *tty)
>>> +{
>>> + p->low_latency = (p->flags & ASYNC_LOW_LATENCY) ? 1 : 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* Allocate the buffer we use for writing data */
>>
>> Where exactly -- am I missing something?
>
> in tty_port_alloc_xmit_buf. it's a copy past from mips_ejtag_fdc.c,
> I will clean this line if it's confusing.
No, I mean where do you use the allocated buffer? mips_ejtag_fdc.c uses it.
>>> +static int rpmsg_tty_probe(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct rpmsg_tty_port *cport;
>>> + struct device *dev = &rpdev->dev;
>>> + struct rpmsg_channel_info chinfo;
>>> + struct device *tty_dev;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + cport = rpmsg_tty_alloc_cport();
>>> + if (IS_ERR(cport)) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to alloc tty port\n");
>>> + return PTR_ERR(cport);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (!strncmp(rpdev->id.name, TTY_CH_NAME_WITH_CTS,
>>> + sizeof(TTY_CH_NAME_WITH_CTS))) {
>>
>> sizeof of a string feels unnatural, but will work in this case. Can a
>> compiler optimize strlen of a static string?
>
> I don't know if a compiler can do this...
> what about replacing sizeof by strlen function?
> i saw some code example that use strlen with static string...
> (e.g https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/edac/edac_mc.c#L1193)
The question was exactly about that: can a compiler optimize it to a
bare number or will strlen call remain there?
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
