[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhaX-R2UV8B9xMXL@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:45:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] serial: core: Extract uart_alloc_xmit_buf() and
uart_free_xmit_buf()
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:04:35AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 09. 04. 24, 19:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
..
> I see very much of tty_port_alloc_xmit_buf() and tty_port_free_xmit_buf() in
> here :).
A-ha!
> Currently, different locks are used, so the patch is, I think, good for now.
> For future, we should switch to the tty port helpers.
Sure, but I'm not familiar with TTY.
> Actually have you looked if the different locking is an issue at all? IOW,
> isn't the tty_port's (and its xmit buf) lifetime enough w/o uart port locks?
Nope. I only looked at spin lock differences (irq/irqsave) and decided that
irqsave variant is good for both cases.
..
So, do I need to do anything or is it good to go as-is?
Thanks for review.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists