On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 12:30:27PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> >> + kernel_neon_begin(); /* disables preemption */ \
> >> >
> >> > Same nitpick.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Is there anything wrong with that?
> >
> > I said nitpick.
> >
> > My (very minor) objection is that a (very reasonable) comment is added
> > to existing functionality by a patch that adds new functionality. It
> > makes the git blame/praise output less clear.
> >
> >> Would you prefer the comment to be on a separate line?
> >
> > I would _prefer_ the comments to be a separate patch.
> > But again, a nitpick.
> >
>
> Well, adding the comment is relevant to this patch, as we need to
> disable preemption now before switching to the new address space. In
> fact, it might be better even to drop the comment, and add an explicit
> (if redundant) preempt_disable/preempt_enable pair.
That would be more clear, yes.
/
Leif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
