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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YZYKjmejIqub5tTf@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 09:10:54 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
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 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
describe it).

Johan
 
> 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.