| Message ID | 20230827074147.2287-5-jirislaby@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tty: n_tty: cleanup | expand |
diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c index 7f9fee4cf7cf..c0b23e975877 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c @@ -1173,8 +1173,7 @@ static void n_tty_receive_overrun(const struct tty_struct *tty) struct n_tty_data *ldata = tty->disc_data; ldata->num_overrun++; - if (time_after(jiffies, ldata->overrun_time + HZ) || - time_after(ldata->overrun_time, jiffies)) { + if (time_is_before_jiffies(ldata->overrun_time + HZ)) { tty_warn(tty, "%d input overrun(s)\n", ldata->num_overrun); ldata->overrun_time = jiffies; ldata->num_overrun = 0;
The jiffies tests in n_tty_receive_overrun() are simplified ratelimiting (without locking). We could use struct ratelimit_state and the helpers, but to me, it occurs to be too complex for this use case. But the code currently tests both if the time passed (the first time_after()) and if jiffies wrapped around (the second time_after()). time_is_before_jiffies() takes care of both, provided overrun_time is initialized at the allocation time. So switch to time_is_before_jiffies(), the same what ratelimiting does. Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby (SUSE) <jirislaby@kernel.org> --- drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)