[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7746d25a-bcbc-fece-eaa3-2dbea9c0f93e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:14:49 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Jiri Slaby (SUSE)" <jirislaby@...nel.org>
cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/15] tty: don't check for signal_pending() in
send_break()
On Tue, 19 Sep 2023, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:
> msleep_interruptible() will check on its own. So no need to do the check
For clarity:
... will check !signal_pending() on its own.
> in send_break() before calling the above.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@...nel.org>
> ---
> drivers/tty/tty_io.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> index 87bb5094e0bb..24833b31b81c 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> @@ -2484,8 +2484,7 @@ static int send_break(struct tty_struct *tty, unsigned int duration)
> retval = tty->ops->break_ctl(tty, -1);
> if (retval)
> goto out;
> - if (!signal_pending(current))
> - msleep_interruptible(duration);
> + msleep_interruptible(duration);
> retval = tty->ops->break_ctl(tty, 0);
> out:
> tty_write_unlock(tty);
>
--
i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists