Hi,
2012/5/10 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> You'd need to ifdef both of these for non RT cases. I think it may be
> right for RT although I'm not 100% sure on the locking.
Alan, I don't completely understand what you mean with "ifdef both".
Regarding the following two functions defined in drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
- tty_schedule_flip
- tty_flip_buffer_push
They both implement almost the same functionality:
void tty_schedule_flip(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
if (tty->buf.tail != NULL)
tty->buf.tail->commit = tty->buf.tail->used;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
schedule_work(&tty->buf.work);
}
void tty_flip_buffer_push(struct tty_struct *tty)
{
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
if (tty->buf.tail != NULL)
tty->buf.tail->commit = tty->buf.tail->used;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
if (tty->low_latency)
flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work);
else
schedule_work(&tty->buf.work);
#else
flush_to_ldisc(&tty->buf.work);
#endif
}
Only difference is that tty_schedule_flip() always uses the work
queue, while the tty_flip_buffer_push only uses the work queue in case
of a non prempt_rt system and low_latency flag unset.
I see that most serial drivers use the tty_flip_buffer_push()
function. But still a number of drivers use the tty_schedule_flip()
function. I even found one driver that uses both
(drivers/staging/serqt_usb2/serqt_usb2.c). Is is there a reason for
these two functions implementing slightly different behavior?
If not, I think it would be better to remove the tty_schedule_flip()
function completely in a separate patch...
Regards,
Ivo Sieben
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
