On 2022-11-10, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> -static inline bool uart_console_enabled(struct uart_port *port)
>>> +/* Variant of uart_console_registered() when the console_list_lock is held. */
>>> +static inline bool uart_console_registered_locked(struct uart_port *port)
>>> {
>>> - return uart_console(port) && (port->cons->flags & CON_ENABLED);
>>> + return uart_console(port) && console_is_registered_locked(port->cons);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline bool uart_console_registered(struct uart_port *port)
>>> +{
>>> + bool ret;
>>> +
>>> + console_list_lock();
>>> + ret = uart_console_registered_locked(port);
>>> + console_list_unlock();
>>> + return ret;
>>
>> Perhaps
>>
>> return uart_console(port) && console_is_registered();
>>
>> to avoid locking the list when the first condition is not true?
>
> I do not have strong opinion on this. It is true that the code
> duplication is trivial but it is a code duplication. Either
> way would work for me.
I will go with Geert's suggestion for v4. It is important that we reduce
lock contention for non-console ports.
> The reset of the code looks good. Feel free to use:
>
> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
John
