On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 05:17:28PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 05:12:51PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > This patch uses the new update_thread_flag() helpers to simplify a
> > couple of if () set; else clear; constructs.
> >
> > No functional change.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 19 +++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > index 87a3536..0c4e7e0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
[...]
> > @@ -902,7 +900,7 @@ void fpsimd_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next)
> > if (current->mm)
> > task_fpsimd_save();
> >
> > - if (next->mm) {
> > + if (next->mm)
> > /*
> > * If we are switching to a task whose most recent userland
> > * FPSIMD state is already in the registers of *this* cpu,
> > @@ -910,13 +908,10 @@ void fpsimd_thread_switch(struct task_struct *next)
> > * the TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE flag so the state will be loaded
> > * upon the next return to userland.
> > */
> > - if (__this_cpu_read(fpsimd_last_state.st) ==
> > - &next->thread.uw.fpsimd_state
> > - && next->thread.fpsimd_cpu == smp_processor_id())
> > - clear_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE);
> > - else
> > - set_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE);
> > - }
> > + update_tsk_thread_flag(next, TIF_FOREIGN_FPSTATE,
> > + __this_cpu_read(fpsimd_last_state.st) !=
> > + &next->thread.uw.fpsimd_state ||
> > + next->thread.fpsimd_cpu != smp_processor_id());
>
> Given the multi-line comment and this multi-line call, I'd be inclined to
> leave the curlies in place and then use a local bool for the complex
> condition.
Hey, curlies cost money, you know.
> With that:
>
> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
Are you content to see this merged without the change? It doesn't seem
worth a respin of the whole series just for this. I agree the code
would be clearer, but this patch doesn't actually make it worse IMHO.
If I respin for some reason though, I can address this and add your Ack.
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
