Re: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer_push
From: Johan Hovold
Date: Thu Nov 18 2021 - 03:11:31 EST
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 08:54:05AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Friendly ping Johan, Greg: any opinions on the tty_schedule_flip vs
> tty_flip_buffer_push case -- which one should I keep?
I still prefer keeping tty_flip_buffer_push() since it's name is much
more descriptive and since it's used by almost all drivers.
There's also no good reason to force developers to relearn the insert +
push pattern either (and rewriting the documentation and books that
> On 22. 09. 21, 8:57, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 16. 09. 21, 12:03, Johan Hovold wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:14:15AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>> Since commit a9c3f68f3cd8d (tty: Fix low_latency BUG) in 2014,
> >>> tty_flip_buffer_push() is only a wrapper to tty_schedule_flip(). All
> >>> users were converted, so remove tty_flip_buffer_push() completely.
> >> Did you consider inlining tty_flip_buffer_push() or unexporting
> >> tty_schedule_flip() instead?
> > Yes -- I see no reason for two functions doing the very same thing. It's
> > only confusing.
> >> The name tty_flip_buffer_push() is arguable more descriptive since the
> >> work may already be running and is also less tied to the implementation.
> >> The ratio of drivers using tty_flip_buffer_push() over
> >> tty_schedule_flip() is also something like 186 to 15 so that would
> >> amount to a lot less churn too.
> > OK, I can do either way. I chose this path as tty_schedule_flip was a
> > wrapper to tty_flip_buffer_push. In any case, I wouldn't take the number
> > of changed drivers as a measure. But if it makes more sense for people
> > regarding the naming, I will "flip" the two flips.