[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56AA93D7.50002@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:19:03 -0800
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] tty: Use test_bit() with tty->flags
On 01/28/2016 02:13 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 08:36:16PM -0800, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> tty->flags are handled with atomic bit ops; use test_bit() treewide.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
>> ---
>> arch/ia64/hp/sim/simserial.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/isdn/i4l/isdn_tty.c | 6 +++---
>> drivers/s390/char/tty3270.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/staging/dgap/dgap.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/staging/dgnc/dgnc_tty.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/tty/amiserial.c | 6 +++---
>> drivers/tty/serial/68328serial.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/tty/serial/crisv10.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 6 +++---
>> drivers/tty/synclink.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/tty/synclink_gt.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/tty/synclinkmp.c | 4 ++--
>> drivers/tty/tty_port.c | 2 +-
>> net/irda/ircomm/ircomm_tty_ioctl.c | 6 +++---
>> 15 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/ia64/hp/sim/simserial.c b/arch/ia64/hp/sim/simserial.c
>> index e70cade..2ab9ba6 100644
>> --- a/arch/ia64/hp/sim/simserial.c
>> +++ b/arch/ia64/hp/sim/simserial.c
>> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ static int rs_ioctl(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>> if ((cmd != TIOCGSERIAL) && (cmd != TIOCSSERIAL) &&
>> (cmd != TIOCSERCONFIG) && (cmd != TIOCSERGSTRUCT) &&
>> (cmd != TIOCMIWAIT)) {
>> - if (tty->flags & (1 << TTY_IO_ERROR))
>> + if (test_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &tty->flags))
>
> I thought you were going to wrap these up in a tty_*() macro instead of
> open-coding it everywhere? That way you can change how those
> bits/features are represented in the future, which is what I thought you
> wanted to do?
I wasn't going to do that for tty->flags, just for tty_port->flags.
> Even if you don't want to do that, something like:
>
> static inline int tty_is_io_error(struct tty_struct *tty)
> {
> return test_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &tty->flags);
> }
>
> and then this patch would just be:
> if (tty_is_io_error(tty))
>
> Or something like that, I'm not sold on the name, I'm sure you can pick
> a better one :)
>
> Sound reasonable?
But I agree that seems better; I can certainly do something like that.
I think just tty_io_error().
> I'll not apply this patch in the series for now.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
Powered by blists - more mailing lists