Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 09:06:18AM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 08:29:33AM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote:
>> >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_serial.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/u_serial.c
>> >> @@ -563,6 +563,8 @@ static int gs_start_io(struct gs_port *port)
>> >>
>> >> /* unblock any pending writes into our circular buffer */
>> >> if (started) {
>> >> + pr_debug("gs_start_tx: ttyGS%d\n", port->port_num);
>> >> + gs_start_tx(port);
>> >> tty_wakeup(port->port.tty);
>> >
>> > The tty_wakeup() will be called from gs_start_tx(), so should be removed
>> > from here.
>>
>> Not exactly. tty_wakeup() will be called from gs_start_tx() only when
>> there has been something actually transferred from the buffer. I didn't
>> want to change behavior when the buffer is empty, so I kept the explicit
>> tty_wakeup() call in place, intentionally. Please let me know if you
>> still think it should be removed.
>
> Indeed it is as you describe. You might add an argument that initializes
> do_tty_wake, but I'm not sure saving one tty_wakeup() on open is worth
> the trouble.
OK, so let's leave it as is, at least for now.
>
>> > The pr_debug() in other callers of gs_start_tx() say:
>> > "caller: start ttyGS%d".
>>
>> ???
>>
>> $ git co gregkh/tty-next && grep -r 'caller: start tty' .
>> HEAD is now at 7788f54... serial_core: Remove unused member in uart_port
>> $
>
> Replace 'caller' with a function calling gs_start_io().
Thanks, now I see... Do you prefer:
pr_debug("gs_start_io: start Tx on ttyGS%d\n", port->port_num);
then?
Alternatively, I'm OK with removing this new debug print.
What do you think?
Thanks,
-- Sergey Organov
