2023-09-19 09:00:25

by Jiri Slaby

Subject: [PATCH 14/15] tty: don't check for signal_pending() in send_break()

msleep_interruptible() will check on its own. So no need to do the check
in send_break() before calling the above.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <[email protected]>
---
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);
--
2.42.0

2023-09-19 15:35:45

by Ilpo Järvinen

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) <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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.