linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YUMWaCpT4s8dQKiy@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:03:20 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer_push

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?

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.

Also, can you please start adding cover letters to your series to
provide an overview of what it is you're trying to accomplish?

Johan