Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of June 15, 2021 6:37 pm: > > > Le 11/06/2021 à 04:30, Nicholas Piggin a écrit : >> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of June 5, 2021 12:56 am: >>> prep_irq_for_user_exit() is a superset of >>> prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit(). >>> >>> Refactor it. >> >> I like the refactoring, but now prep_irq_for_user_exit() is calling >> prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit(), which seems like the wrong naming. >> >> You could re-name prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit() to >> prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() maybe? Or it could be >> __prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() then prep_irq_for_kernel_enabled_exit() >> and prep_irq_for_user_exit() would both call it. > > I renamed it prep_irq_for_enabled_exit(). > > And I realised that after patch 4, prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() has become a > trivial function used > only once. > > So I swapped patches 1/2 with patches 3/4 and added a 5th one to squash > prep_irq_for_enabled_exit() > into its caller. > > You didn't have any comment on patch 4 (that is now patch 2) ?
I think it's okay, just trying to hunt down some apparent big-endian bug with my series. I can't see any problems with yours though, thanks for rebasing them, I'll take a better look when I can. Thanks, Nick
