Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-138670-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:45:29 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] serial: core: Extract uart_alloc_xmit_buf() and
 uart_free_xmit_buf()
Message-ID: <ZhaX-R2UV8B9xMXL@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240409174057.1104262-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <52a83cb5-ef4f-46f5-ad90-1f64b4d588e2@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52a83cb5-ef4f-46f5-ad90-1f64b4d588e2@kernel.org>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

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