From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752570AbcF1Pko (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:40:44 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43412 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752101AbcF1Pka (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:40:30 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: Re: RFC: out-of-tree tty driver breakage (changing ASYNC_ bits) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <5692D054.7050203@hurleysoftware.com> <20160111044204.GB12741@kroah.com> <5693D72D.6050501@hurleysoftware.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 67-130-15-94.dia.static.qwest.net User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Linux) Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2016-01-11, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 01/11/2016 07:53 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2016-01-11, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 01:42:44PM -0800, Peter Hurley wrote: >>> >>>> This will break out-of-tree drivers but I don't really see a >>>> realistic alternative. Also, I think the new symbol prefix ASY_ isn't >>>> great and I'd like to get some suggestions. >>> >>> Don't worry about breaking out-of-tree drivers, that's fine. >> >> One request from this maintainer of several out-of-tree drivers: if >> you break something, break it such that it won't compile. It would be >> nice to avoid changes that break functionality but still compile >> without warning. > > I was in the process of writing how I can't remove > ASYNC_INITIALIZED, et.al from the uapi header, when I realized that > I can just guard them with #ifndef _KERNEL_ which will trigger the > requisite out-of-tree build break. One of my drivers checks that state of port.flags & ASYNC_INITIALIZED in various places (it also checks some other port.flags bits (_CLOSING, _SPD_xxxx, _LOW_LATENCY). I've been regulary building against linux-next waiting for the build to fail when the flag changes got pulled. It still builds cleanly, but it looks like the flags canges are indeed in linux-next. Does that mean that I don't need to change my code to use tty_port_initialized()? You know that _KERNEL_ is defined when when compiling kernel-space code (either in-tree or out-of-tree), right? I see from comments in tty_flags.h that ASYNC_CLOSING is no longer used. But I don't see a replacement in tty.h -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm having a at tax-deductible experience! gmail.com I need an energy crunch!!