Re: [PATCH 0/3] serial: Fix support for UPF_SPD_* flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 5:54 PM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday 08 July 2022 17:42:03 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 4:20 PM Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Friday 08 July 2022 15:51:01 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 03:26:21PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > On Friday 08 July 2022 15:07:43 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 10:48:40AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday 22 April 2022 16:28:06 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > I'm not saying remove them, I'm saying let us not add any more
> > > > > > dependancies on them in order to keep new applications from ever wanting
> > > > > > to use them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last time you wrote to remove them. Now saying not to remove them. So I
> > > > > do not understand you now.
> >
> > There was a _new_ addition of the ugly SPD_CUST, that's what I believe
> > Greg opposes to. And I support that.
>
> Which addition? I do not understand you. There was not any new driver
> with introduction of SPD support.

You stated that SPD_CUST is broken in some drivers, so you are trying
to fix a broken ugly hack. Why? Instead of making it rot and be
removed eventually, you pump life into frankenstein.

> > > > I'm sorry, I am totally lost.
> > >
> > > So look what you have wrote? Who is lost here is me.
> > >
> > > > How about starting over and resubmitting
> > > > the changes you want and we can go from there.
> > >
> > > What to resubmit? I do not understand you. In case you lost emails or
> > > accidentally removed them, you can look at them in archive, not? I hope
> > > that you do not want me to copy+paste all existing patches with all your
> > > quotes on them which you wrote into new emails.
> >
> > That change that adds the new user of SPD_CUST?
>
> What you are talking about? Which user?

This I missed, I was thinking that you are talking about a new user,
now I read briefly and it seems that it's about an existing user.
Anyway, that change I suppose.

> > In any case the best summary about BOTHER I ever read is this [1] (and
> > an initial steps in picocom [2]).
>
> Is not that example in manpage enough?

Dunno.
Can you point it out to me? I can't find it quickly.

> > And I believe that instead of
> > SPD_CUST we should get rid (or at least minimize) the problems with
> > BOTHER in user space.
>
> I looked into archives and seems that glibc people are not interested in
> this area. And I'm not going to spend time on another project which seems
> to be useless.

So why should the kernel suffer if it already provides something good
for the user and user space ignores that?

> > [1]: https://github.com/npat-efault/picocom/blob/master/termios2.txt
> > [2]: https://github.com/jmesmon/picocom/issues/2

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linmodem]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Kernel for ARM]

  Powered by Linux