Re: [PATCH 1/6] tty: implement write_iter

From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oliver Giles <ohw.giles@gmail.com>,
	Robert Karszniewicz <r.karszniewicz@phytec.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] tty: implement write_iter
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:33:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ade6b19-dc9e-ef72-dcca-1ddaa8d6c5fd@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh+-rGsa=xruEWdg_fJViFG8rN9bpLrfLz=_yBYh2tBhA@mail.gmail.com>

On 21. 01. 21, 19:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:57 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Incremental patches please as these are already in my public branches
>> and I would have to revert them and add new ones but that's messy, so
>> fixes on top is fine.
> 
> Ok. And since I think you put that first tty_write conversion patch in
> a different branch from the tty_read one, I did the fixup patches for
> the two as separate patches, even though they really just do the exact
> same thing.
> 
> So here's three patches: the two fixups for the hung_up_tty case, and
> the EOVERFLOW error case that Jiri also noted. I've also updated the
> 'tty-splice' branch if you prefer them that way.
> 
> And I *should* say that I still haven't tested _any_ of the HDLC
> changes. I have no idea how to do that, and if somebody can point to a
> test-case (or better yet, actually has a real life situation where
> they use it and can test this all) it would be great.
> 
> Jiri, any other issues, or any comment of yours I missed? I didn't do
> the min() thing, I find the explicit conditional more legible myself,
> but won't complain if somebody else then disagrees and wants to clean
> it up.

I cannot find anything else.

All three:
Reviewed-by: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>

thanks,
-- 
js