On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 09:14:28AM +0100, Maarten Brock wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:59:03PM +0100, Maarten Brock wrote: > > > Better to hold the spinlock as short as possible. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Maarten Brock <m.brock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c | 10 ++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c b/drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c > > > index f4ad0db..4fd81ad 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c > > > @@ -147,7 +147,6 @@ static int ulite_receive(struct uart_port *port, int > > stat) > > > if (stat & ULITE_STATUS_PARITY) > > > flag = TTY_PARITY; > > > > > > - > > > stat &= ~port->ignore_status_mask; > > > > > > if (stat & ULITE_STATUS_RXVALID) > > > > What was that change for? I'll go delete it from this patch... > > I dislike spurious double empty lines. Should I really create a separate patch > to get it removed? I can only imagine it got inserted by accident. Yes, each patch can only do one "thing". -- 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
