Hi Greg: It have no logic that handles NULL in tpk_flush() but tpk_printk(). Do you mean that if i understand correctly?!I think we should not remove the logic that handles NULL in tpk_printk() as we don't know if the buf from parent caller is null or not.But we transfer a null buf to tpk_printk() for previous version of tpk_close, i think it's redundant.
The comment is a hitory tip for other guys to understand.I suggest to keep it as before if you like. thanks JY On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 08:52:23AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 02:02:24PM +0800, Junyong Sun wrote: > > tpk_printk(NULL,0) do nothing but call tpk_flush to > > flush buffer, so why don't use tpk_flush diretcly? > > this is a small optimization. > > > > Signed-off-by: Junyong Sun <sunjuny...@xiaomi.com> > > --- > > drivers/char/ttyprintk.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c b/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c > > index 6a0059e..2ce78b3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c > > +++ b/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static void tpk_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct > > file *filp) > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&tpkp->spinlock, flags); > > /* flush tpk_printk buffer */ > > - tpk_printk(NULL, 0); > > + tpk_flush(); > > If you do this, then please remove the logic in tpk_flush() that handles > NULL as now that logic will not be needed at all, right? > > Also the comment here wouldn't be needed as the code obviously does that > based on the function call being made :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h
