On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:21:07AM +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> > --- > changes in v2: > - rm the flush comment as tpk_flush makes it obvious. > --- > --- > drivers/char/ttyprintk.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c b/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c > index 6a0059e..1f82742 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ttyprintk.c > @@ -103,8 +103,7 @@ static void tpk_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file > *filp) > unsigned long flags; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&tpkp->spinlock, flags); > - /* flush tpk_printk buffer */ > - tpk_printk(NULL, 0); > + tpk_flush(); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tpkp->spinlock, flags);
Why did you not make the change to tpk_printk() as well that I asked you to? It is a static function, you control the callers, so the extra "is this NULL, if so flush" logic makes no sense to keep around anymore, right? thanks, greg k-h