Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ffec9dbe-a238-4411-acdb-41bd33719288@kernel.org>
References: <20201130153742.9163-1-johan@kernel.org> <20201130153742.9163-2-johan@kernel.org>
 <ffec9dbe-a238-4411-acdb-41bd33719288@kernel.org>
From:   Mychaela Falconia <mychaela.falconia@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 23:09:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+uuBqa-k0Ztt18cetCdYs=6tBk8xTHufaFAcbpA3wert8nFAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] tty: add port flag to suppress ready signalling on open
To:     Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Mychaela N . Falconia" <falcon@freecalypso.org>,
        linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On 11/30/20, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
> port can be const here.
> [...]
> We have assign_bit() for these cases these days.

Johan's patch adding test and set accessor inline functions for the
new flag follows the style of the existing accessor inline functions
for previously existing flags, for the sake of consistency. If we are
going to use the new style (const for test functions, assign_bit() for
set functions) for the new flag, then we should also change all
existing ones for consistency. In terms of patch splitting, would it
be most kosher to have one patch that updates the style of existing
accessor inline functions, and then the interesting patch that adds
the new flag?

M~