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
