On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:35:48PM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote:
> Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 09:43:29PM +0300, Sergey Organov wrote:
> >> @@ -911,9 +911,6 @@ static irqreturn_t __imx_uart_rxint(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >> continue;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (uart_handle_sysrq_char(&sport->port, (unsigned char)rx))
> >> - continue;
> >> -
> >> if (unlikely(rx & URXD_ERR)) {
> >> if (rx & URXD_BRK)
> >> sport->port.icount.brk++;
> >> @@ -942,7 +939,8 @@ static irqreturn_t __imx_uart_rxint(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >> flg = TTY_OVERRUN;
> >>
> >> sport->port.sysrq = 0;
> >> - }
> >> + } else if (uart_handle_sysrq_char(&sport->port, (unsigned char)rx))
> >> + continue;
> >
> > Nit: missing braces {}
> >
> > Note that you could also place just place this after the block due to
> > the reset of the sysrq time stamp.
>
> Thanks, I think I'll opt for adding braces. Relying on the reset of the
> timestamp feels a bit convoluted.
I agree, it may be a bit too subtle.
Johan
