On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 08:54:05AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Friendly ping Johan, Greg: any opinions on the tty_schedule_flip vs > tty_flip_buffer_push case -- which one should I keep? I still prefer keeping tty_flip_buffer_push() since it's name is much more descriptive and since it's used by almost all drivers. There's also no good reason to force developers to relearn the insert + push pattern either (and rewriting the documentation and books that describe it). Johan > 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.
