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;
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:03:20 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] tty: drop tty_flip_buffer_push
Message-ID: <YUMWaCpT4s8dQKiy@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20210914091134.17426-1-jslaby@suse.cz>
 <20210914091415.17918-1-jslaby@suse.cz>
 <20210914091415.17918-9-jslaby@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210914091415.17918-9-jslaby@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

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?

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.

Also, can you please start adding cover letters to your series to
provide an overview of what it is you're trying to accomplish?

Johan