On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:30 PM Vincent Chen <vincent.c...@sifive.com> wrote:
> >
> > +static inline void fstate_off(struct task_struct *task,
> > + struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + regs->sstatus = (regs->sstatus & ~(SR_FS)) | SR_FS_OFF;
>
> The SR_FS_OFF is 0x0 so no need for ORing it.
That one looks OK to me, since it makes it more obvious to humans what's
happening here - reviewers won't need to know that "off" is 0x0. The
compiler should drop it internally, so it won't affect the generated
code.
> Apart from above minor comment, looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <a...@brainfault.org>
Will add your Reviewed-by: tag - let us know if you want me to drop it or
caveat it.
- Paul
