Re: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer_push

[Jiri Slaby]

Friendly ping Johan, Greg: any opinions on the tty_schedule_flip vs 
tty_flip_buffer_push case -- which one should I keep?

I would like to move forward with these as I have a lot kernel-doc 
writings pending and depending on this patch (be it "drop 
tty_flip_buffer_push" or "drop tty_schedule_flip").

Thanks.

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.



--
js
suse labs