On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 09. 03. 23, 9:20, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > Align if condition to make it easier to read.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> > index 0481e57077f1..1c9e5d2ea7de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> > @@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ static void n_tty_receive_overrun(struct tty_struct
> > *tty)
> > ldata->num_overrun++;
> > if (time_after(jiffies, ldata->overrun_time + HZ) ||
> > - time_after(ldata->overrun_time, jiffies)) {
> > + time_after(ldata->overrun_time, jiffies)) {
>
> Staring at this, what the second time_after() does in the first place?
>
> > tty_warn(tty, "%d input overrun(s)\n", ldata->num_overrun);
> > ldata->overrun_time = jiffies;
> > ldata->num_overrun = 0;
That's a very good question ... I first thought it was checking whether
the jiffies is between two times but obviously that was wrong intuition
now when taking a closer look.
But then, looking more into it, this whole thing looks an opencoded
*_ratelimited print. So perhaps overrun_time could be removed
completely... ? I can see it kinda changes priority of which messages
would get filtered out but I don't know if that's a problem or not.
--
i.
