On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:34:27PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 02:39:53PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
...
> > > + if (c == STOP_CHAR(tty)) {
> > > + if (!lookahead_done)
> >
> > But now it can be as below
> >
> > if (c == STOP_CHAR(tty) && !lookahead_done)
> >
> > > + stop_tty(tty);
> > > + } else if ((c == START_CHAR(tty) && !lookahead_done) ||
> > > (tty->flow.stopped && !tty->flow.tco_stopped && I_IXANY(tty) &&
> > > c != INTR_CHAR(tty) && c != QUIT_CHAR(tty) &&
> > > c != SUSP_CHAR(tty))) {
>
> Are you sure about this? ...If I make that change to the first if, the
> second part of the else if's condition get a chance it didn't have
> previously.
Oh, indeed. This will give a chance to the rest of the second conditional to be
triggered because of ||.
> What I'd like to do here is to take advantage of the function that was
> added:
>
> if (!n_tty_receive_char_flow_ctrl(tty, c) &&
> tty->flow.stopped && !tty->flow.tco_stopped && I_IXANY(tty) &&
> c != INTR_CHAR(tty) && c != QUIT_CHAR(tty) &&
> c != SUSP_CHAR(tty))) {
> start_tty(tty);
> process_echoes(tty);
> }
> ...but it will change STOP_CHAR vs START_CHAR precedence for the case
> where they're the same characters. I don't know if it matters.
No idea of impact of such change.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
