Re: [PATCH 7/8] n_tty: Reindent if condition

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1428 bytes --]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2023, Jiri Slaby wrote:

> On 09. 03. 23, 9:20, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > Align if condition to make it easier to read.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> > index 0481e57077f1..1c9e5d2ea7de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> > @@ -1176,7 +1176,7 @@ static void n_tty_receive_overrun(struct tty_struct
> > *tty)
> >     	ldata->num_overrun++;
> >   	if (time_after(jiffies, ldata->overrun_time + HZ) ||
> > -			time_after(ldata->overrun_time, jiffies)) {
> > +	    time_after(ldata->overrun_time, jiffies)) {
> 
> Staring at this, what the second time_after() does in the first place?
> 
> >   		tty_warn(tty, "%d input overrun(s)\n", ldata->num_overrun);
> >   		ldata->overrun_time = jiffies;
> >   		ldata->num_overrun = 0;

That's a very good question ... I first thought it was checking whether 
the jiffies is between two times but obviously that was wrong intuition 
now when taking a closer look.

But then, looking more into it, this whole thing looks an opencoded 
*_ratelimited print. So perhaps overrun_time could be removed 
completely... ? I can see it kinda changes priority of which messages 
would get filtered out but I don't know if that's a problem or not.

-- 
 i.