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
