Eduard Zingerman writes: > On Fri, 2024-04-19 at 10:37 +0100, Cupertino Miranda wrote: > > [...] > >> I was proud of the initial boolean implementation that was very clean >> and simple, although like Yonghong said, not truly a refactor. >> If everyone agrees that it is Ok, I will be happy to change it back. > > Hi Miranda, > > I've talked to Yonghong today, he is ok with removing distinction between > __mark_reg_unknown and mark_reg_unknown, but he asks to first make a patch, > that replaces the use of mark_reg_unknown() by __mark_reg_unknown(). > So that the follow-up refactoring patch would not change any behaviour. > What do you think? Sure, I will prepare it. I presure the patch should be the first in the series. Thanks, Cupertino > > Best regards, > Eduard
