On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 06:14:29PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote: > > > > I think there's some tweaks that could be made here, but I err'd on the > > side of "don't break shit" before I went twiddling. > > > > It is at least easier to understand, but certainly this shows how poorly > > the original code was structured. > > Yeah, if this is an intermediate state I won't necessarily insist but it just > feels so odd. > > Maybe have a look at it doing the split in the function and see how that > sits? >
There's an implied v2 for this series i think, i was going to look at this commit a little more closely for sure. There's a balance between making a reviewable patch and fixing poorly structured code. Let me take a crack at reworking it on top of the series, and then see whether anything appreciable changes. If so, then I'd prefer to keep that in a separate commit so the behavioral change is very explicit. Some of the sched() nonsense is going to look equally weird. ~Gregory
